Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Voluntary Sector and Environmental Task Force

Gillian Merron: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the voluntary sector and environmental task force options available as part of his proposals to provide employment for young people. [8595]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): My right hon. Friends the Ministers for the Environment and for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights and the Minister of State, Home Office—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—last week had an excellent launch of the voluntary sector and environmental task force element of the new deal, which will play a crucial part at local level in the consortiums to be developed and the programme to be laid out.

Gillian Merron: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome reply. Will the voluntary and environmental sectors be represented on the task force chaired by Sir Peter Davis? I believe that their involvement is crucial to its success.

Mr. Blunkett: The task force will play a crucial role in the development of the programme and its successful promotion locally. Together with the business sector and others, those sectors will be represented to ensure that a wide view is heard. We have also established an advisory group in which environmental and voluntary sector interests are well represented. They will work at regional and local level to help to develop the programme.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Secretary of State agree that this scheme could do much good environmental work in Gloucestershire, such as maintaining dry-stone walls and specialist Cotswold stone buildings? Does he further agree that, if we were able to deploy young people on such schemes, the skills that they would have to learn to carry out those tasks, which might otherwise be lost, would be retained in rural areas?

Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. I welcome the commitment, and therefore the consensus, that the hon. Member brings to this matter.

Literacy and Numeracy

Mr. Goggins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has given to primary schools on teaching literacy and numeracy. [8597]

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): Our White Paper "Excellence in schools" sets out in broad terms our strategies for raising standards in literacy and numeracy in primary schools. We will issue more detailed guidance on literacy to local education authorities and schools in the autumn. On numeracy, we will be guided by the work of the numeracy task force, which will offer its interim recommendations in November.

Mr. Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that one of the most important things that parents can do to help their children as they grow up is to listen to them reading? What advice is he giving primary schools to encourage them to ensure that parents play their full part in the drive for higher standards?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend identifies an important area. A child's first teacher is his parent. Under the previous Government, four family literacy centres were established and were a great success. I am delighted to inform the House that the Government will this year support 265 courses in 64 local education authorities to carry forward that important work.

Jobseekers (Work and Training)

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he will take to ensure that genuine reasons for refusing an opportunity to work or train are recognised; and if he will make a statement. [8599]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): The Government recognise that there are occasions when a jobseeker has good cause for refusing an opportunity of employment or training. The Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 make provision for that. Employment Service procedures ensure that a jobseeker has the opportunity to set out his or her reasons for refusing an offer before a decision is made.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I draw his attention to the fact that in Glasgow high unemployment among young people continues, and it is not because they are workshy? What would happen if places were not readily available? Will my hon. Friend examine carefully the reasons for reducing benefit? The regulations are confusing and there is misunderstanding at local and national level. I hope that that will be sorted out before the new deal is in place to ensure that no injustice is done to any young person.

Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out, unemployment is all too high, and there is all too much poverty in her constituency of Glasgow, Maryhill. We will do all that we can to ensure that a full range of high-quality options is available for her constituents under


the new deal. As for sanctions, I believe that the rules are entirely clear, but I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no question of a sanction being imposed if an appropriate option is not available to one of her constituents.

Mr. Willetts: Will the Minister elaborate on the remarks that he made the other day to his old soulmates at the Adam Smith Institute? Will he confirm that employers who participate in the scheme will have to give an undertaking that those whom they take on will not displace others who are working for them? Will those employers have to agree that there will be an overall increase in employment in their firms? Are these new-style planning agreements with businesses really the best way of increasing employment?

Mr. Howarth: I relish the ideologically challenging character of the hon. Gentleman's question. He and I always welcome the play of ideas.
I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is a risk that employers will abuse the opportunity provided for them through the offer of a £60-a-week subsidy to enable them to take on a young person under the new deal. He may also agree that we cannot simply be inactive. We cannot say to employers, "Go your own way; let market forces operate, and let people take their chance." It is clear that young people who have been unemployed for more than six months are in difficulty in the labour market, and we must therefore do our best to encourage employers to provide them with work opportunities. At the same time, we must do all that we can do to ensure that a number of employers do not abuse the subsidy, and that is what we are doing.

School Standards

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received about standards in schools. [8600]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): This Government's top priority is to raise school standards. Since we took office, my colleagues and I have met a wide range of individuals and organisations, and have taken full advantage of the opportunities to listen to their views.

Mr. Amess: Will the Minister join me in congratulating all the schools in my constituency of Southend, West on their efforts to improve education standards? Will she reassure, in particular, grant-maintained and selective schools that the new Government will do nothing to damage their efforts? Finally, will she undertake to examine the Essex common schools funding formula carefully? At present, the formula works in favour of small schools to the detriment of large schools, particularly Westborough primary school in my constituency, which has 784 pupils.

Ms Morris: I am delighted to congratulate all schools that raise standards in the hon. Gentleman's new constituency, and indeed in all constituencies. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate schools that do well in Basildon as well.
Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no intention of preventing any school, whatever its status, from raising standards. The sooner we shift the debate to standards and away from structure, the better it will be for all children. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is giving careful attention to all matters financial; he will note what the hon. Gentleman has said, together with any representations that are made. We want fair funding, and we realise that, in the transition to it, we must not damage schools that are paramount in the provision of education.

Ms Hodge: My hon. Friend will have read about the case of the 15-year-old girl who appears to have been expelled from a school in Nottinghamshire. Does she share my concern about the fact that a young girl has apparently been expelled simply for complaining about education standards in the school? Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the agenda for raising education standards must be listening to the voice of consumers—parents and students?

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend will understand that, until we receive a report on the incident, it is inappropriate for us to comment here. We have asked for such a report. I understand that the school has now broken up for the holidays, but that the child and her parents will appeal to the governors to ensure that the case is brought to a satisfactory end, as I hope it will be. They should have that right of appeal, and I think that the most sensible option is to let the appeal take its course and to hope that the matter can be resolved locally. That is where it should be resolved. I know that the governing body, together with the head teacher, will want to put the educational interests of the child at the forefront of its decisions.

Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister agree that, if we are to raise standards in our schools, we need high-quality teachers? Is she aware that, in the past 12 months, 16,000 heads, deputies and teachers left the profession early? Is she further aware that, over the past five years, there has been an 11 per cent. reduction in the number of people entering the profession? Finally, is she aware that, because of the inadequacies in the Chancellor's Budget for education, there will be further cuts in the teacher work force next year? Taken together, those facts are a ticking time bomb. How does the Minister intend to prevent it from exploding

Ms Morris: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the shortfall in teacher recruitment figures, which I have discussed with him. We need our best graduates in teaching—people who are good leaders and good teachers and who want to take their share of responsibility for educating the next generation.
The Government will put at the forefront of their intentions plans to attract the best into teaching. The consultation which my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards launched this morning on the general teaching council is one of the many ways in which we are attempting to attract better graduates into teaching. We inherited a difficult situation from our predecessors in terms of teacher supply; they took no action to deal with the problem. We shall take action, and we hope to make announcements in due course.
I am proud of the Chancellor's settlement. It means that extra money will go into schools this year for capital and revenue spending, and I know that schools throughout the country will greatly welcome that.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: When considering standards in schools and the quality of teachers, will my hon. Friend have regard to the quality of the buildings in which teachers and children have to teach and learn? In particular, will she have regard to the primary school in Wrenthorpe in my constituency, which is an old building? We need new buildings for people to teach and work in.

Ms Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend that the condition of school buildings plays its part in our mission to help to raise standards. He will welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor which put £1 billion over four years into building capital. We have much to make up, given what we inherited from the Conservative Government. I assure my hon. Friend that we take seriously our obligations to make sure that our children learn in satisfactory circumstances. As he knows, we have made a good start with this year's financial settlement.

Tuition Fees

Mr. Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to charge students in higher education for all or part of their tuition fees; and if he will make a statement. [8602]

Mr. Blunkett: I refer the hon. Member to the statement that I made in the House yesterday.

Mr. Willis: Does the Secretary of State agree that his announcement yesterday about students paying for tuition fees will not put money into our universities immediately? Does he agree with Sir Ron Dearing's analysis that, to try to combat the 6.5 per cent. deficit over the next two years, which is the legacy of the previous Administration, he will need to find £100 million for next year and £250 million for the following year, simply to stand still? If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with Sir Ron, will he guarantee to provide that funding?

Mr. Blunkett: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a shortfall and that it arises from the previous Government's settlement for higher education in the next two years. As part of the fundamental spending review undertaken by the Government, we shall address how best to meet that deficit and how to ensure that, between now and the resumption of a revenue stream for higher and further education, we can sustain standards and quality.

Mr. Gunnell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he presented the issue of fees and maintenance yesterday. In particular, I thank him for the way in which he made plain his intention that no one would be prevented from undertaking higher education by these charges. He gave the limits for qualifying home income for places that would be provided free of cost. Will the household income of current part-time students who receive pay be looked at on the same basis? Has any thought been given to whether part-time students will be eligible for student loans?

Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. As I said yesterday, we need to examine how equity between full and part-time students can be obtained. We will consider that as part of the development of the White Paper in the autumn. Those considerations will include the disregards against the gross income of a family or individual, which include at the moment the discounting of mortgage but not rent, and the discounting of some forms of domestic help. It will cause great disquiet to the House when it realises that those discounts are provided against gross income, and it will want us to deal with such anomalies, as well as with the general thrust of my statement yesterday.

Mr. Dorrell: Following yesterday's statement, will the Secretary of State confirm that, under his proposals, the loan available to an individual student will be equivalent to the total amount of loan and grant currently available to that individual student, plus an enhancement that would be sufficient to pay the means-tested tuition fee that he proposes to introduce? If that is the position, is it not true that any increase in resources for higher education during the next three years—the length of a course for students starting from next September—would have to come from extra public expenditure or publicly guaranteed expenditure in the form of loan disbursements? Given everything that he said yesterday about the importance of his proposals in releasing new resources for higher education, will he now be more specific about what he plans in terms of extra resources for British universities?

Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions, especially as he has put them more gently than he did yesterday. With one addition—that, for those with hardship, there will be a supplementary loan available of £250 a year—I can confirm that his figures are correct. In the first year—if we are in a position to implement the proposals from next September—we would raise around £125 million. That would be displaced by the introduction of the loan scheme. It will therefore be necessary to consider additional resources in the light of my reply to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).

Young People (Assistance)

Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what ways he will ensure that options offered to young unemployed people are suited to their individual needs. [8603]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights (Mr. Andrew Smith): The individual needs and circumstances of every eligible young person will be addressed in the up to four months gateway period before they start a new deal option. The Employment Service will work in partnership with professionals and agencies to ensure that young people receive independent careers advice and help in tackling particular social and other problems that are holding them back from training or work.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I commend to him a partnership that already exists in Slough, led by Mars and other local companies and engineered by our local authority, which is beginning


to provide opportunities very like those to be provided by the welfare-to-work programme. What has been a concern among that group, however, is that the Employment Service was very reluctant to join the partnership. How will he ensure that the Employment Service does work with other partners to ensure the quality of experience for each individual, because the policy will require a major cultural change in the Employment Service, which has been not about providing services to individuals but about meeting phoney targets?

Mr. Smith: I was interested to learn of the initiative in my hon. Friend's constituency. We want to build on the best practice that is already out there in terms of partnership to help young and long-term unemployed people. My hon. Friend is right to say that successful delivery of the new deal in partnership does involve a change in the task that the Employment Service was given by the previous Administration. It means a culture shift. That is accepted by the people who work for the Employment Service, and a programme is being driven forward by the chief executive. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), and I have addressed meetings of employment centre staff throughout the country to ensure that they are fully engaged in the shift that is needed to ensure that the Employment Service helps our young people to take the great opportunities that will be offered in the new deal.

Mr. Öpik: What consideration has been given to ensuring that young unemployed people in the countryside are successfully included in the scheme, thereby reducing the immense pressures on young people to move from the countryside into cities in search of work?

Mr. Smith: As well as the 27 regional consultation meetings which are being held by the end of the first week in August, there will be local consultation meetings in September and October in each locality so that we can ensure that the new deal design is sensitive to the needs of the client group in the areas in which the programmes are carried forward. The pathfinder districts where the new deal will start early, in January, will include rural areas to ensure that we learn from that experience.

Information Technology

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that information technology is used effectively for adult learning. [8604]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): We are increasing information and advice to employers. In addition, the new university for industry will encourage and develop a wide range of learning opportunities, including many that are information technology based.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that, if we are to use information technology effectively in adult education, we must also increase support and training to teachers and further education lecturers? If he does agree, can he explain to the House how he intends to increase teacher confidence in exploiting technology to meet student needs?

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that I met the Teacher Training Agency this morning to

discuss this subject, and I was encouraged by its enthusiasm and breadth of knowledge on the use of information technology in schools for education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is discussing with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport how best to deploy lottery money in order to fund the Teacher Training Agency for the use of IT. We recognise that it is crucial if we are to make a success of this great boon to learning.

Mr. Keetch: Is the Minister aware of the concern among many employers at the lack of IT training on courses for national vocational qualifications? Given that IT is now part and parcel of almost every profession, what measures are the Government taking to increase the IT element in such courses?

Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that IT is at the centre of so many disciplines. I was shocked to discover the appalling mess in which the previous Government left the IT sector after 18 years. It was a total shambles and was very patchy. I suspect that that is because most of the previous Ministers did not know how to turn on a computer.

School Standards

Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what role he plans to give to local education authorities in supporting schools to raise standards. [8605]

Mr. Lock: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for the role local education authorities should have in supporting schools to raise standards. [8607]

Mr. Blunkett: The White Paper "Excellence in schools", published on 7 July, sets out the key task of self-improvement within schools, but supported by the local authority with advice and the spread of best practice. The provision of a development plan worked out with the schools which will be submitted to the Department will deal with the way in which, by collaboration rather than conflict, we can ensure that each plays its part in raising standards for the future.

Helen Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I am sure that he will agree that the Tory years of cuts have left many classrooms poorly equipped with new technology and with scruffy and inadequate books and library areas. In poorer areas particularly, parents do not have, and cannot afford, the top-up necessary to help in that regard.
In their support role, will local education authorities also be given a monitoring role on that bread-and-butter side of education standards in schools? When the Government start their regular inspection of LEAs, will they ensure that it covers the bricks, mortar, books and wherewithal of teaching, as well as the standard of teaching itself?

Mr. Blunkett: I assure my hon. Friend that the inspection will cover the availability of the equipment, books and material that are so crucial to raising standards and enabling teachers to do their job. My Department


wrote to the directors of education on 18 July asking them to consider equipment and technology in the bids that they will put in for a share of the £250 million a year that was allocated by the Chancellor in the Budget on 2 July.

Mr. Lock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important areas of co-operation between local education authorities and schools is that of special educational needs? Is he aware that in my constituency of Wyre Forest there is good co-operation between schools and the LEA?
I welcome the statement in the White Paper that resources will be switched from the bureaucratic requirement to obtain a statement into proper and effective help for those children with special educational needs. May the House have further details on how that switch of resources to provide effective help will be achieved? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that those who work in the important area of special educational needs are central to the Government's crusade to raise standards? They are not working at the periphery of an elitist educational system which benefits only the few.

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important and often neglected area in the education system. In the autumn, we will publish a Green Paper so that we can develop consultation with schools, special needs co-ordinators and parents on the best way to ensure that we place resources at the right level and at the right time for intervention to be most effective. We want to overcome, where that is possible, the special needs of the youngsters and to reinforce the work already taking place in our schools. It is time that we placed as much emphasis on those with special educational needs as we place on the small elite group who, with our help, continue to flourish in our education system.

Mr. Bercow: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that requiring the star-performing London Oratory to submit an annual improvement plan to the poor-performing Hammersmith and Fulham education authority will contribute to improving standards in that school?

Mr. Blunkett: I want to make it clear that, over recent times, Hammersmith and Fulham education authority has been doing an excellent job in supporting and raising standards in its area, including at the Phoenix school, which is a classic example of how a fresh start can give a school the opportunity to offer, to the children who inevitably attend it, the sort of education which, regrettably, Conservative Members seem to think can and should be available only to a very few.
I also want to make it clear that there is room for improvement in every school in this country. We agree with the Office for Standards in Education that the average should be increased to the excellent and the excellent should be striving for even greater excellence for the sake of the children in those schools.

Mr. Dorrell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an increasing belief that his White Paper on schools was simply a series of pious aspirations? Why did he decide to publish his White Paper, but delay until later in the year publication of the detail of his proposals for

the future structure of schools? Does he understand that it will not be acceptable to publish that consultation document in the middle of the school holidays and then say that those interested in the future structure of schools had had adequate time to react to his proposals?

Mr. Blunkett: A representative of the previous Conservative Government talking about stages, levels and timing of consultation really takes the biscuit. The right hon. Gentleman sheds tears about people who are on holiday and therefore not available for consultation. He would do better to examine what the White Paper is all about—standards and excellence in schools; concentrating on the future, not the past; and a new agenda uniting all those who want to move away from past conflict and division. That is why, in consulting on any further changes, we will ensure that we work with the grain and consensus. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to be so griping and sour in everything that he says and does.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when standards have been raised, especially in the working-class base where they need to be raised, and when literacy and numeracy have been improved, as an earlier answer suggested they would be, more and more young people will want to go to university? Until yesterday, one feature that distinguished us from the Tories was our stance on tuition fees and similar issues. There seemed to be a blurring of the edges yesterday. May I ask my right hon. Friend, as modestly and quietly as I can, to take sufficient time before the publication of the White Paper and the introduction of the Bill to listen to the many voices from the Labour Benches about financing? Can he assure us that we have not heard the last word yet?

Mr. Blunkett: As quietly and gently as I can, I tell my hon. Friend that there will never be a last word on any subject with him in the Chamber. I assure him that we shall listen and respond. We shall lift the cap on access to higher education that the previous Government brought in. We shall ensure quality and standards for those for whom education will be available because of the new access when it would not have been available had we not found an alternative income stream. We shall ensure that those from families earning more than £35,000 a year, who will not receive help with the payment of fees, will be supported in fulfilling the expectations and aspirations that will no doubt come from their parents, given the level of income that they are drawing on.

Assisted Places Schemes

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he proposes to take to ensure money that saved from the abolition of the assisted places schemes is ring-fenced to reduce class sizes of five, six and seven-year-olds. [8606]

Mr. Byers: We intend to channel funds to local education authorities through specific grant to ensure that resources are dedicated to delivering on our pledge to reduce class sizes.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining that, but he has not clarified the issue of ring-fencing. My education authority in Dorset is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, not the Labour party. County councillors have the right to decide how to spend that money. The Government have made a pledge to reduce class sizes. How will they fulfil that manifesto pledge without ring-fencing the money and telling county councils that they can spend it only on reducing those class sizes?

Mr. Byers: I apologise for not addressing that clearly enough in my original reply. I said that we would channel the funds through specific grant, which is a technical way of saying that the money will be ring-fenced. The money can be used only to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. We make no apology for that requirement. We made that pledge to the British electorate during the campaign, and we intend to honour it in government.

Valerie Davey: Will the Minister join me in deprecating the comment of the Conservative candidate in Uxbridge, who, when told that one in five children in the area were in classes of more than 30, claimed that it had no direct bearing on Uxbridge?

Mr. Byers: I join my hon. Friend in condemning the Conservative candidate in Uxbridge, who is clearly prepared to turn his back on the needs of five, six and seven-year-olds in that constituency. There is no doubt in my mind that, after the by-election next Thursday, I shall be able to work with my colleague Andrew Slaughter to ensure that we can deliver on the class size pledge to those young children in Uxbridge, where one in five are presently in classes of more than 30. We shall deliver on that pledge in Uxbridge and in the rest of the country.

Mrs. Browning: Last Friday morning, the Minister promised a technical consultation to work out how the Government's pledge of classes of a maximum of 30 could be put into practice in small Victorian primary schools in rural areas that teach across an age range. Will he promise that a cost assessment will accompany that consultation? If the practicalities of how the pledge will be delivered in rural areas have yet to be worked out, there will clearly be attendant costs that the Minister has not taken into account.

Mr. Byers: The Government have made it clear that we shall honour the pledge that we gave to the electorate during the election campaign. The hon. Lady is right. Within a matter of weeks, we shall issue our consultation paper, which will show how we intend to honour the commitments made in the White Paper. That consultation document will address the issues the hon. Lady raised last Friday and again today.

Lifelong Learning

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to announce his new programme for lifelong learning. [8608]

Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will set out his plans for lifelong learning in a White Paper to be published in the autumn.

Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that lifelong learning must suffuse our whole education system? Does he also agree that it must play a part in the decisions announced yesterday on the Dearing report? Will he assure me that every business that has a good scheme for lifelong learning will be consulted, and that we shall look at best practice in all universities nationally and internationally before we make our decisions?

Dr. Howells: There are some excellent schemes for education and staff development in many of our leading firms. I would very much like lifelong learning to include proposals on how best small and medium enterprises, as well as everyone else involved in manufacture and education, can access those centres of excellence. I hope that that information can be disseminated throughout society.

School Standards

Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to raise standards in schools. [8609]

Mr. Byers: The White Paper "Excellence in schools", published on 7 July, sets out in detail the Government's proposals for raising standards in schools and summarises what we aim to achieve over the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. How does he intend to include as many parents as possible in our crusade to raise standards in education, bearing in mind the wide range of abilities among parents? I am thinking not only of special needs children, but of special needs parents. How do we involve all parents in the crusade?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the important role that parents play in raising standards, particularly in the basics of literacy and numeracy. We intend to introduce home-school agreements which will lay down clearly the rights, responsibilities and duties of schools and parents. We believe that, by adopting that approach, we shall be able to engage parents in the important process of improving the education that their children receive.

Mr. Malins: I understand that the minimum requirement to enter teacher training college is now three grade Cs at A-level. If that is right—perhaps the Minister can confirm it—is not the requirement rather low? Would we not have a better-educated teaching profession if we raised the standard required for those wishing to enter teacher training colleges?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is right. We have inherited a legacy of neglect as a result of 18 years of Conservative Government; and recruitment to teacher training illustrates that point well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly write to the School Teachers' Review Body and, in the process, he will draw that body's attention to the need to retrain, recruit and motivate teachers. We shall take positive steps to do that


because we recognise that the only way in which we shall improve the quality of the education our children receive is by raising the quality of classroom teaching.

Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways in which to raise standards in schools, as shown by academic research, is to cut class sizes? In this connection, is it not a disgrace that the Conservative party has consistently tried to block the Government's attempts to do that, to the detriment of the vast majority of children?

Mr. Byers: There is no doubt in our mind that, by reducing class size, we shall improve the quality of education that our children receive. That is why we are pledged to reduce class sizes to 30 or fewer for every five, six and seven-year-old. Those young children have been the innocent victims of the previous Government's neglect of the education service. We do not intend to turn our backs on those young people. We shall reduce class sizes so that what is presently the privilege of a few will become the right of the many.

Nursery Education

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to ensure universal nursery education; and if he will make a statement. [8610]

Ms Estelle Morris: Local education authorities will set out in their early-years development plans how they will provide, by September 1998, three terms of pre-school education to all four-year-olds whose parents want it.

Mr. Waterson: Is the hon. Lady aware of the strong support in Eastbourne and elsewhere for both the playgroup movement and private nursery provision? Is it not a tragedy that, as a result of the scrapping of the nursery voucher system, for party political and dogmatic reasons, many parents in my constituency will not be able to have access to such diversity of provision, which was the centrepiece of the previous Government's policy?

Ms Morris: I share with the hon. Gentleman's constituents my admiration for much of that done by the voluntary and independent sectors in providing good-quality early-years education for our young children. His Government's voucher policy particularly threatened the voluntary sector. As a result, we have abolished the voucher scheme and replaced it with planned provision to ensure that all the money that is available for early-years education can be spent on young children and not on bureaucracy.
I have made it clear before, and I reassure the House and the hon. Member again, that plans that come forward as development plans will have to show proper partnership between the maintained, voluntary and independent sectors. They will not be approved unless they show such partnership.

Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend recognise that parents with young children throughout the country welcome the steps being taken by the Labour Government to make nursery education available as of right to all

four-year-olds, and look forward to the day when, after 18 years of neglect, the Labour Government are able to make nursery education also available to three-year-olds?

Ms Morris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He is absolutely right. There has been evidence for a long while that the best way to give children a good start in education is to give them the best start in early-years education. The tragedy has been that whether a child received such education depended on where they lived, not whether they needed it. Parents will welcome our pledge at long last to do what Labour local authorities have been doing for a very long time: ensuring that all four-year-olds whose parents want it have good-quality early-years education. Parents will also welcome it if we move quickly to ensure that such education is available for three-year-olds as well.

Mr. Allan: Given the Government's clearly stated aim to create partnerships between LEAs, the voluntary sector and the independent sector, which the Liberal Democrats support, what does the Minister make of difficulties faced by some voluntary sector providers, such as the Bradway playgroup in my area, in getting registered to provide places in an area which, historically, has had little or no LEA provision? Will she look at that urgently?

Ms Morris: I am not aware of the particular playgroup to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he thinks that it is appropriate that I look at the matter, I shall of course be happy to do so. It is very important that all providers reach the standards that we expect as providers of early-years education for young children. That is clearly set out in the learning outcomes. I should have thought that, if providers reach those standards, they should be talking to the local authority. If they have a part to play in the provision of early-years education, integrated with child care, the early-years development plan is the arena in which they can make their voices heard.

New Deal

Mr. David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has had from small business representatives about the new deal proposals for providing employment for young people. [8611]

Mr. Andrew Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received a wide range of representations. Representatives of small business were also among those who attended the Chancellor's new deal breakfast seminar at the end of last month and the national and regional consultation meetings which are now under way.

Mr. Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that, in former mining areas such as mine of north-west Leicestershire, the expansion plans of small and medium enterprises are often slowed or stalled by skill shortages? Does he agree that, if those SMEs were to follow the advice of the Federation of Small Businesses and get involved with our new deal plans, they would often find just the right people to allow their development to continue?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Small and medium businesses, in constituencies such as his and elsewhere, have a great opportunity to match their unmet labour needs with the enormous potential of our young people, which the previous Administration so tragically allowed to go to waste.

Mr. Spring: In contrast to the experience of the rest of Europe, why have small businesses in Britain been so successful in helping to reduce the level of youth unemployment?

Mr. Smith: The representations that we receive daily from small businesses and small business representatives in support of the new deal show that much more can be achieved. The extra support and training available through the new deal will, for many small businesses, make the difference between being able to take on extra employees and not being able to take them on. We want them to take on new employees, because the new deal is about jobs.

University for Industry

Ms Rosie Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to establish a university for industry. [8613]

Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend hopes to announce our plans for developing the university for industry very shortly.

Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the key to improving skills and training is to bring together business, industry, education institutions and training providers with Government Departments to identify strategic priorities? What advice can he give businesses in my constituency which wish to become involved with the university for industry?

Dr. Howells: We are consulting widely on the form and shape that the university for industry will take. Survey after survey has shown that one of the great weaknesses of British industry is the quality of its management. If the management of small and medium enterprises can begin to access the best of our larger and more successful firms and the better of our smaller firms, that will benefit everyone, especially those in the manufacturing sector that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Sixth Forms

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of new sixth forms which will open this autumn. [8615]

Dr. Howells: We consider every sixth form application on its merits and will continue to do so.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that establishing new sixth forms is not the best use of resources? Is he aware of the problems in Tameside, where the previous Government approved a new sixth form for Audenshaw high school in spite of the excellent provision in Tameside college, Ashton sixth form centre and Hyde sixth form centre? It would have been better to

use the resources in all the local authority schools in Tameside instead of establishing a new, unnecessary sixth form at Audenshaw high school.

Dr. Howells: I was sorry that I had not seen the application before it was agreed by the previous Administration, but we pay special care and attention to every application that is made to the Department for an additional sixth form in any school anywhere in England. We shall continue to do so, because we are well aware that resources are precious and that unnecessary duplication should not happen. We shall be careful when deciding which schools are allowed to have sixth forms in future.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Before considering new sixth forms, will the Minister look carefully at the funding formula as it affects existing sixth form colleges? My constituency contains two excellent sixth form colleges, but the funding formula is in danger of adversely affecting them. Will the Minister move towards greater convergence in the funding formula for sixth formers, whether in school or in sixth form colleges?

Dr. Howells: The right hon. Lady is right, and we must look carefully at that formula. The Further Education Funding Council deals with sixth form colleges, which are separate from sixth forms in schools, and we must examine the relationship between them carefully. At every opportunity, we seek excellence and best practice. Whether those factors are provided in a sixth form in a school or in a sixth form college, our decision will be based on that information and our desire to raise standards.

Youth Training

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his proposals to increase training and employment opportunities for young people. [8616]

Mr. Andrew Smith: Through the new deal and Target 2000 we shall increase, and put into the mainstream, opportunities for young people to prepare and equip themselves for the world of work, so that they are empowered to play a full and productive part in society.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Minister accept that thousands of young people are languished on the dole queue with no opportunities for training or developing skills during the years of Conservative government, and who are looking to the new Government to give them early, fairly immediate opportunities to improve their quality of life and increase their talents and skills, both for their own sake and for that of their families and of this country? What can he suggest to the House to give those people some immediate hope, some aspirations for the coming 12 months?

Mr. Smith: The new deal that we have proposed offers the quality options of work, primarily with private sector employers, or on the environmental task force or in the


voluntary sector and, for those who lack basic skills, the opportunity of full-time education and training for up to 12 months. That is in addition to the measures set out by the Chancellor for sustainable growth in the economy, to enable us to repair the social damage and the wasted lives to which my hon. Friend rightly referred.

Employment Proposals

Mrs. Brinton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the introduction of his proposals for providing employment for young and long-term unemployed people. [8617]

Mr. Andrew Smith: The new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds will begin in a number of "pathfinder areas" in Britain in January next year, and will be introduced nationally next April. The help for people aged 25 or over who have been unemployed for at least two years will start in June 1998.

Mrs. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that yesterday, in my constituency of Peterborough, I presented the new deal to the chamber of commerce, where it was most warmly welcomed? Is he also aware that Shackleton Associates, also in my constituency, is already operating a highly successful pilot scheme? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party, not the Conservative party, is now the party of business and enterprise?

Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the positive reception that our new deal proposals are receiving from the business community, just as they are from the people of this country as a whole. If this country is to become, as it should, a one-nation Britain, that requires a whole-nation effort. [Laughter.] Conservative Members who are laughing should join that effort and become part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, which is what their party's Administration was.

Mrs. May: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the report by the Policy Studies Institute that was mentioned in the press some days ago? It said that the previous Government's proposals for getting unemployed people into work had been extremely successful, especially what I think was called the workfare proposal, whereby people went into work for a number of weeks while remaining on benefit? At the end of the period, that had achieved a far higher percentage of unemployed people getting permanent jobs than had many other such schemes.
The report also said that the Government's new deal welfare-to-work proposals were likely to be expensive and unnecessary, and would not be as successful as those of the previous Government. What percentage of unemployed people does the Minister expect to achieve permanent jobs at the end of their time on a welfare-to-work scheme?

Mr. Smith: I think that the hon. Lady has misnamed the study referred to in the report. If I recall correctly, the report praised the work trial initiative, which enabled long-term unemployed people to have trial placements with employers while still in receipt of benefit, so that

their fitness for employment, and the employers' keenness to take them on, could be assessed. That had a measure of success and, as I have been saying in response to my hon. Friends, I would see us, through the new deal, building on what works well in the community at present. The range of choices that will be made available, coupled with the incentives to employers both for 18 to 24-year-olds and for the long-term unemployed who are 25 or older, means that the new deal will surely be even more successful than the initiative that the hon. Lady mentioned.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the imposition of a requirement to be available for work on Sundays in order to qualify for jobseeker's allowance. [8618]

Mr. Alan Howarth: People receiving jobseeker's allowance do not have to be available for work on a Sunday, providing that they can agree a pattern of availability for work with their Employment Service adviser which means they are available for the number of hours required, usually for 40 hours a week, and gives them reasonable prospects of securing employment. If, for example, a clergyman were to propose that his pattern of work should be such that he would not need to be available for work on a Sunday, we should look askance at that.

Mr. Breed: Will the Minister make his view crystal clear to all officers dealing with jobseeker's allowance, because there is a growing feeling that people who have to turn down jobs on moral grounds because they potentially involve work on Sundays are being denied their jobseeker's allowance?

Mr. Howarth: It is made clear in the jobseeker's regulations that genuinely held religious or conscientious reasons for declining an offer will be accepted as a good cause. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is important that all Employment Service staff react with sensitivity to the genuine conscientious concerns of unemployed people.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I can assure the Minister that to lead the people of God in worship on a Sunday is not work—work is the rest of the week. We have had assurances that people would not be penalised if they were concerned about Sunday work. Can I plead that there be no restrictions at any level? If there are restrictions, we shall be moving towards not only the millennium but the mark of the beast.

Mr. Howarth: It certainly would not be work to listen to either a speech or a sermon from the hon. Gentleman. I can give him the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No. I am sorry, but points of order are always taken after statements.

Scottish Devolution

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about our plans for the Scottish Parliament. Copies of this statement and the White Paper are now available in the Vote Office.
On 1 May, the people of Scotland—like the people of the United Kingdom as a whole—voted for our manifesto and a comprehensive programme of constitutional change. At its heart was our commitment to create a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, giving the people of Scotland and Wales more control over their own affairs within the United Kingdom. Our aim is to make government more open, more accessible and more accountable to the people whom we serve, and to give the United Kingdom a modern constitution fit for the 21st century.
The Government are losing no time in turning these commitments into reality. On Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales published his plans for devolution to Wales. Today, I am laying before the House the detailed proposals for the Scottish Parliament.
Like many others in the House and beyond, I have campaigned long and hard for a Scottish Parliament over the years. Few occasions in my long parliamentary career have given me as much pleasure as coming here today to present our firm proposals for that Scottish Parliament.
In my time, I have seen many devolution schemes. I genuinely believe that this is the best, and is right for Scotland. We have renewed, modernised and improved on the plans agreed within the broad coalition of Scottish interests in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The scheme will provide a new, stable settlement which will serve Scotland and the United Kingdom well in the years to come.
Let me outline what we propose. The Scottish Parliament will have the power to make the law of Scotland in devolved areas. Entrusting Scotland with control over her own domestic affairs will better allow the people of Scotland to benefit from, and contribute to, the unity of the United Kingdom.
The Scottish Parliament will hold to account an Executive headed by a First Minister which will operate in a way similar to the United Kingdom Government. Together, the Scottish Parliament and Executive will be responsible for the wide range of domestic matters which affect everyone living in Scotland, including health; education and training; local government; housing; social work; aspects of economic development; transport; the law and home affairs; the environment, including the natural and built heritage; agriculture, fisheries and forestry; sport and the arts. The details are in the White Paper.
A key aspect of the Scottish Parliament's role will be to create and maintain an effective oversight of other Scottish public bodies, the health service and particularly local government. We expect the Scottish Parliament and Executive to complement and not encroach on democratically elected local government.
Let me tell the House why this is an advance on any scheme that has gone before and why I believe that not only the time is right but the scheme is right.

The Parliament will have extensive law-making powers. Unlike in 1978, the full range of the Scottish Office's functions will be devolved. This will provide the opportunity to make a real difference in the areas that matter.
The legislation will define reserved matters, not devolved matters, and the Scottish Parliament will be able to exercise its law-making powers in all areas that are not specifically reserved to Westminster. The relationships between the Scottish Executive, the United Kingdom Government and the Crown will provide clarity and stability for the future. The Parliament will have the discipline and responsibility of defined financial powers. The Scottish Executive will be closely involved with the United Kingdom Government in European decision making.
Throughout the White Paper, our guiding principle is to trust the Scottish people to make the right decisions on their own behalf. The detailed procedures, the working arrangements and the practical issues relating to the governance of Scotland will properly be left to the Parliament and the Executive, answerable, as they will be, to the Scottish electorate.
The United Kingdom Parliament is, and will remain, sovereign in all matters, but, as part of our resolve to modernise the constitution, Westminster will be choosing to exercise that sovereignty by devolving legislative responsibility to the Scottish Parliament, without diminishing its own powers.
Those matters more appropriately dealt with on a United Kingdom basis will remain at Westminster. They will include the constitution of the United Kingdom; foreign policy; defence and national security; the stability of the United Kingdom's fiscal, economic and monetary system; common markets for United Kingdom goods and services; employment legislation; some health issues, including abortion; social security matters; and most aspects of transport safety and regulation.
After devolution, Scotland's Members of Parliament will continue to play a full and constructive role in the proceedings of this House. That is right both for Scotland and for the United Kingdom, because devolution is about strengthening the United Kingdom.
The distribution of seats is regularly reviewed by the parliamentary boundary commissions, which follow criteria defined in statute. At present, special statutory provisions stipulate a minimum number of Scottish seats. This has led to Members for constituencies in Scotland representing, on average, fewer constituents than do Members in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Our devolution proposals mean that, in practice, Westminster will no longer be the forum for scrutinising much of Scotland's domestic legislation. This brings into sharper focus the imbalance in the current arrangements. The Government have decided that the requirement for a minimum number of Scottish seats should no longer apply. Primary legislation will be needed. This will be put in place before the next full boundary commission review.
Other statutory requirements, such as the need to give due weight to geographical considerations and local ties, will continue to apply. The actual number of seats allocated to Scotland will be for the boundary commission to recommend, exercising its judgment in accordance with the criteria laid down.
There will continue to be a Secretary of State for Scotland who will work with the new Scottish Parliament and represent Scottish interests within the United Kingdom Government. The staff of the Scottish Executive will continue to be part of a unified home civil service. The Scottish Executive and the United Kingdom Government will work closely together at ministerial and official level. The stability of the system is of the utmost importance. The White Paper sets out detailed arrangements for these working relationships and for resolving any disagreements.
The people of Scotland will continue to benefit from the influence that the United Kingdom has as a major state within the European Union. Relations with the European Union will remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, with the Scottish Executive making an effective and appropriate contribution to United Kingdom decision making on Europe. Ministers in the Scottish Executive will have an opportunity to participate in relevant meetings of the Council of Ministers, and in appropriate cases could speak for the United Kingdom.
There will be a Scottish representative office in Brussels; this will complement the role of the Office of the United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the European Community, and will allow the Scottish Executive to operate more effectively in Europe. The Scottish Executive will have an obligation to implement EU legislation on devolved matters. Our proposals are very much in line with developments across the European Union.
The financial framework for the Scottish Parliament will be based on the present "block and formula" arrangements for the Scottish Office, known as the Barnett formula, adapted to match the range of the Scottish Executive's future responsibilities and to maintain and improve transparency and accountability. This will give the Scottish Parliament the ability and freedom to approve spending decisions that are fully in accordance with Scottish needs and priorities.
As an integral part of these financial arrangements, the control of local government expenditure, non-domestic rates and other local taxation will also be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, with appropriate safeguards to protect all UK taxpayers. The Government's objective is to ensure that Scotland's spending decisions are taken in Scotland, in the light of Scottish circumstances.
Subject to the outcome of the referendum, the Scottish Parliament will be given power to increase or decrease the basic rate of income tax set by the UK Parliament by up to 3p. The Parliament will have a guaranteed right to raise or to forgo up to £450 million—index-linked—irrespective of changes in the UK income tax structure. Liability will be determined by residence in Scotland, according to Inland Revenue rules. The tax-varying power will not apply to income from savings and dividends. The Inland Revenue will administer any tax variation, with the Scottish Parliament meeting the administrative costs.
Let me now turn to the arrangements for the Scottish Parliament itself. The Scottish Parliament will consist of 129 members, 73 directly elected on a constituency basis, plus 56 additional members—seven from each of the current eight European Parliament constituencies—allocated to ensure that the overall result more directly reflects the share of votes cast for each party. Eligibility to vote will be based on residency.
In the late 1970s, there was, without doubt, a fear that a Scottish Parliament would be dominated by one point of view; the fear was that minorities, geographical or political, would be less than fairly represented. The changes in the electoral system now proposed have ended that possibility. The composition of the Parliament will fairly reflect opinion throughout Scotland.
The Government want to see people who represent the widest possible range of interests coming forward for election to the Scottish Parliament.

Hon. Members: Including Tories.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dewar: The aim must be equal opportunities for all—women, members of ethnic minority groups and disabled people. The selection of candidates is, of course, a matter for individual political parties, but we hope that others will follow our lead in encouraging women representatives.
The Government are determined to have a Parliament building worthy of the new century and ready to provide working conditions which will encourage open and accessible government. It is for that reason that a number of possible sites in Edinburgh, including the old royal high school, are under consideration.
Subject to the passage of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, the people of Scotland will make their historic choice in the referendum on 11 September. Theirs is the judgment that matters. I believe that they will endorse our proposals. As soon as possible following that referendum, we shall introduce the legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament. Once that legislation has been enacted, we can look forward to elections in the first half of 1999. The Government's target is for the Scottish Parliament to assume its full responsibilities in January in the year 2000. That, indeed, will be a new Parliament for a new millennium.
Now is the time for Scotland to choose. Twelve weeks ago, Labour was elected on a promise to deliver a Parliament for Scotland. This White Paper fulfils that promise. We have delivered. All the essentials are here—modernised and improved for the next century. This settlement offers an effective voice for Scotland. It recognises Scotland's distinctive identity and the strong ties that bind us together as one united kingdom. Reform and renewal will give strength to an enduring partnership.
I know—none better—the strength of feeling and the intensity of argument that there has been on this subject over the years. Constitutional change requires good will. I believe that there will be a broad welcome for our proposals, which will reach out across party lines and across the range of our communities. It is my belief that it will be so, and I commend the White Paper to the House.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Today is a sombre day for Scotland and for the—[Interruption.] Oh yes, it is, oh yes, it is. What the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon, far from being a cause for junkets at Edinburgh castle tonight, is, in fact, a dangerous, damaging and dishonest document. It is dangerous because only the most blinkered devolutionist could deny that it contains elements that could lead to the break-up


of the United Kingdom, creating the focus for discontent and disillusion, which can only help to fan the flames of nationalism in Scotland.
The White Paper leaves relations between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in a state of flux. It singularly fails to answer the central constitutional and economic questions, which, left unanswered, can lead only to grave instability and long-term constitutional turmoil. The importance of those vital questions for the long-term viability of the proposals has been belatedly conceded by the U-turn announced on the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster, which flies in the face of 20 years of Labour rhetoric.
The White Paper is damaging because it will marginalise Scotland within the United Kingdom. It will destroy the influence of Scotland in this Parliament, because her representatives will be at best part-time. It will leave the Secretary of State stripped of power, devoid of influence and politically ignored. It is a sad invitation for Scotland to abdicate her historic role in the United Kingdom.
It is damaging, too, because it will inevitably hit Scottish pockets. Powers to vary tax will be used, and it will be Scots who will pay, just as they will increasingly pay through the nose for the growing bureaucracy and costs that will inevitably accompany a Scottish Parliament. This White Paper will make sure that it costs to be Scottish.
The White Paper is dishonest because it seeks the support simultaneously of two irreconcilable political objectives. It looks, on the one hand, for support from nationalists, on the implication that it is the first step to the break-up of the United Kingdom, and, at the same time, tells those who believe in the Union that this is the only way to protect it. The proposals cannot be both unionist and nationalist—friendly at the same time. One has to be deceiving the other, and the people of Scotland are in serious danger of being misled.
May I ask the Secretary of State a few questions that arise from his statement? Can he explain why the view expressed by the present Secretary of State for Defence in January 1996 that 72 would be the right number of Scottish Members after devolution has been so lightly discarded now that the general election is over? What has changed? Where under his proposals will sovereignty lie: with the Scottish people under the terms of the Claim of Right to which the Secretary of State subscribed; with this Parliament; or with the Prime Minister as an English Member of Parliament at Westminster?
Does the Secretary of State not think that Scottish Members should be able to vote in Parliament only on matters relating to their own constituencies and constituents? How could a Minister of the Scottish Executive be allowed to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom at the European Council of Ministers when he or she would not be answerable to this House in Parliament?
The White Paper is a constitutional mess. It is a recipe for continuing constitutional turmoil and an agenda for nationalist pot stirring. The proposals are not even half-baked. It is not too late for the Government to consider the damage that will result from bad constitutional reform, not only in the short term but for generations to come. We will certainly ask the people of

Scotland to look carefully into the dark, cold night that the statement and White Paper open before them and draw back before it is too late. It may be a vain hope, but rather than partying at Edinburgh castle tonight, would it not better for the Secretary of State to go home and think again?

Mr. Dewar: That was a little literary allusion at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's contribution, if I understood it. His contribution was something of a mixed bag—pot stirring and half baked were among the many culinary images—and was not a substantial attack.
Whatever it is, I think that the White Paper is honest. It does not pretend to be something that it is not, and it tries to face up fairly bravely and practically to some of the points that have been made over the years. We have not lightly discarded anything. We have looked long and hard at the problems and the advantages and opportunities. We have come up with a scheme that will be stable and enduring, and will meet the needs of Scotland. It also roots us firmly within the United Kingdom and allows us to contribute effectively to the country as a whole.
The right hon. Gentleman asked an important question about sovereignty and the Claim of Right. Let me make it very clear to him—the right hon. Gentleman has heard me do so on a number of occasions—that this is a scheme of devolved power which has life because I hope that the House will be persuaded that it is right for the governance of the country. Of course, parliamentary sovereignty remains part of that scheme. The Claim of Right, however, is important because it recognises the principle that people in Scotland, as in any other area, have the right to decide their own political future. I hold very firmly to the view that the scheme that I have presented today reflects their wishes and needs. There is a great deal of evidence to support that, but the matter will be put to the test in the referendum in the autumn. If we get that endorsement, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that it is time to act and to move forward in unity to make a good job of an important and exciting constitutional reform.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not resent it—in a sense, we are discussing the Devizes question—if I say that it is rather odd that a party that cannot get a single Member elected in Scotland should pontificate so hostilely on what is clearly the wish for change among the people of Scotland. Some of the attacks implied in the right hon. Gentleman's questions seemed to suggest that he does not want a devolution scheme to be firmly based on the principle that there should be co-operation, good will and effective common purpose within the United Kingdom.
Europe is of increasing importance, and there are many areas in which Scotland will have direct interests. I, at least, have enough faith in civil servants, the Government, this Parliament and their Scottish equivalents to believe that they will work together to build a common position and then work effectively for it in the councils of Europe.
There is no question of attempting to freeload or ride on the back of anyone else. The Scottish block will become the way in which we finance, subject to the revenue-varying powers, the programmes that the people in Scotland want from their elected representatives. I believe that that is a strength, not a weakness, for the United Kingdom.
I believe that the scheme is for the good or I would not appear at this Dispatch Box to argue for it. I believe that it is an answer in part, and only in part, to the very important problem of cynicism about our political and democratic processes which every Member of the House meets daily as he or she goes about their business. It has to be seen in the wider context of constitutional reform, which means breaking away from the ties of centralisation and trusting people in the areas in which they live.
I am very proud that I and my colleagues in Scotland will be in at the start and in the vanguard of that advance.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the Secretary of State accept that, as a Scot, a Liberal Democrat and a partner with his party in the Constitutional Convention, I warmly welcome a substantial White Paper? Although we may have some debates at the margins about the details, and we could even have an interesting academic seminar on sovereignty, in practical political terms—the terms which will affect the everyday lives of the Scottish people—the proposals present us with an opportunity to create in Scotland a powerful and effective Parliament which will properly represent Scotland's political interests and priorities.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that, on the proportional representation system, clear signals can be given to many parts of Scotland which were sceptical in 1979 that the proposed Parliament will be a Parliament for the whole of Scotland and not one of one party representing one part of it?
The important principle of accountability will apply to taxation. Those who are elected to the Scottish Parliament will have proper fiscal accountability to those whom they represent.
Will the Secretary of State expand on what he had in mind when he said that Scottish Executive Ministers could on occasions speak and vote for the United Kingdom in the European Union? That is a welcome proposal.
Will the Secretary of State tell us when he intends to establish the independent committee that will examine the relationship between local government and the Scottish Parliament and Executive, and what its remit will be? Will it be able to take account of the concerns that I have previously expressed to the Secretary of State about the particular needs of islands areas?
Does the Secretary of State accept that, by opting for reserve, rather than devolved, powers and by agreeing to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster, he has embraced some of points that my colleagues and I put to the Labour party during the constitutional convention talks? Although this is an important step on the road to federalism, may we hope that, by the end of this process, we will have convinced the Government of the merits and logic of a federal solution for the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Dewar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I put it to him gently that he pushes his luck on occasions, and I suspect that, to his credit, he knows that.
We are anxious that the Parliament should be seen as devolved power from central Government, and not as encroaching on local government. However, we should trust the people in the Parliament to act responsibly.

A grown-up Parliament with grown-up responsibilities and duties should be able to make its own judgments about that relationship. We are undertaking some preliminary work and there will be an independent inquiry to examine, among other things, the relationship between the new Scottish Parliament and local government. I hope that it will come up with some useful guidance for the Parliament when it is in being.
I take the hon. Gentleman's points about a more proportional system and about the need fairly to represent everyone in Scotland. It is obviously not in the narrow self-interest of the Labour party to move down that road, so we should gain some credit for the fact that the Government have decided to do so, even from those who may disagree with it. It is a genuine attempt to ensure a balanced and proper start for a new democratic body. I think that I am entitled to make that plain.
The question of the number of Members in the Westminster Parliament is a matter of balance. The package should be considered in the round, and I think that we have got it about right. It will always be a matter of judgment. The circumstances of a Scottish Parliament are now very close, and the only people who could prevent it are the people of Scotland if apathy were to win the day, but I do not think that it will. In those changed circumstances, it was right to reconsider the matter and to reach a judgment. That is my judgment and the judgment of my colleagues, and we stand by it.

Mr. David Marshall: Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the vast majority of Scottish people will give a warm welcome to this White Paper, which they will regard as fair and just what they need and want? They will also welcome the opportunity to vote in the proposed referendum on a Scottish Parliament. Will he reaffirm the Prime Minister's pledge to campaign for a yes, yes vote and to visit Scotland as part of that campaign?

Mr. Dewar: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I appreciate his support. I suspect that the support that I shall receive from colleagues will come as a disappointment to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), but he will have to live with that.
My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister has enthusiastically endorsed the White Paper, and will appear in Scotland to make those views clear.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I welcome the publication of the White Paper at last, all the more so because it has upset the Conservative party so dreadfully. As the Secretary of State can imagine, the Scottish National party will examine its contents in great detail as we consider our response over the next few days.
The European dimension is clearly very important to the debate. Will the Secretary of State specify on what areas the Scottish Parliament could lead the United Kingdom delegation? The presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament is an important person. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Scottish Parliament will elect its presiding officer?
The Secretary of State spoke of the need to mobilise opinion in Scotland. Does he agree that, if opinion is to be mobilised, people will have to be convinced that a Scottish Parliament will be a real Parliament that will


make a real difference? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that such a Parliament could, if it wished, remove tuition fees if it considered them to be an obstacle to participation in universities and other areas of higher education?
The Secretary of State and I have disagreed on a range of subjects relating to Scotland's future, but we have agreed on how these matters should be determined. Will the right hon. Gentleman reiterate that nothing in the documents, or in any response that he will give, will interfere in any way with the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine their own constitutional future, whatever that may be?

Mr. Dewar: If I did try to build such barriers, they would be futile and without effect. At the end of the day, in practical politics, what matters is what people want. If the hon. Gentleman is able to carry the people of Scotland, no doubt he will be able to advance his cause. He has signally failed to do so in the past, but I know that he will keep trying, and he is entitled to do so. I believe, however, that the reform package that we have announced today, implemented with good will and spirit, will make his task that bit more difficult. No doubt we shall have further arguments in the future.
Higher education is, of course, a devolved area of responsibility. It has been the responsibility of the Scottish Office for some years, and that means that the Scottish Parliament will be able to exercise its judgment—although I stress that if it exercises its judgment in a way that costs money, it will have to find that money in its budget. No doubt Opposition Front Benchers will be pleased about that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the presiding officer. Perhaps he remembers that, under the 1978 scheme, the Secretary of State for Scotland had an interesting role in chairing the first session while the presiding officer was selected. I do not aspire to that high office or honour, and the choice of a presiding officer will be entirely a matter for elected members.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of decentralised government in Catalonia, Bavaria, Massachusetts and hundreds of countries around the world is ample proof that my predecessor, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, was right to say that there was no need for Scotland to be subsumed in an incorporating union with no Scottish Parliament? I think that it was Lord Seafield who said that it was the end of an old song when the last Scottish Parliament was wrapped up in 1707. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for making it possible for the people of Scotland to elect a new Parliament for the new millennium.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his typical and characterful contribution. When he finally retires from this place, I shall organise a collection and present him with a bound copy of the debates of the Scottish Parliament in 1706 and 1707.

Mr. David Maclean: Will the Secretary of State now stop dancing his little jig

around the fundamental question that he has been dodging all afternoon? How can he claim—and can he tell the House, in all honesty—that the authority of Westminster will not be diminished if a Minister in a Scottish Government speaks for the United Kingdom in Brussels when that person will have no obligation whatever to answer to the House?

Mr. Dewar: I made it perfectly clear—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will read what I said carefully—that European policy will remain with the United Kingdom delegation. We shall be part of that process, however, and when it is appropriate and proper we shall take the opportunity to contribute to debate.

Mr. Ancram: Who is this "we"?

Mr. Dewar: I am sorry; I made the cardinal error of assuming that I was a Scot for the moment. The right hon. Gentleman may have experienced some psychological amputation that removed him from Scotland, but I have not.
The important point is that there is a United Kingdom delegation involving a United Kingdom policy position, for which we all work and which we all try to promote.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What are the Treasury's estimates of the cost of the proposals?

Mr. Dewar: If my hon. Friend, whom I know to be assiduous, consults the White Paper, he will see that there is some help on those matters. The United Kingdom is essentially a partnership in which we pool our resources and allocate them on an agreed basis. There will indeed be some additional cost for example—for running and equipping the Parliament—but I suppose there will be additional costs for running and equipping this building. Most people here think that it is rather a good bargain for the people who have to live within the framework of Westminster legislation. I suspect that that will also be the view of Scottish people.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The right hon. Gentleman asks Conservative Members what right we have to pontificate on these matters. On behalf of my English, Lincolnshire constituents, may I ask what right he will have after devolution to vote in this House to close Caistor or Gainsborough grammar schools while I will have no right, as he will have no right, to vote for the future of education in his constituency?

Mr. Dewar: The arrangements for the devolved Parliament and its terms and abilities will be decided by the votes of all this House. If the House, which is sovereign, thinks that that is right and good—and there are pressing, urgent and good reasons for it to take that view—I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should challenge that.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: Speaking as a federalist, may I compliment my right hon. Friend on his remarkable work and his fine White Paper? He is right to remind constitutional conservatives in this place that we live in a multinational state. If the people of a constituent nation in that state seek the reform of the


governance of their nation, no one should obstruct that advance, as was so memorably said by Charles Stuart Parnell.
From time to time, disputes may arise between, say, London and Edinburgh. Would it not make good sense for my right hon. Friend to give sympathetic consideration to the creation of a constitutional court made up of four senior judges from Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Dewar: There have been a number of arguments for a constitutional court, and I am sure that many people will continue to support that case. If it were to come to pass, it would be for the future. I do not think that it is a short-term option. Here we have some practical solutions to any dispute resolution that is required, ending with arbitration in the judicial committee of the Privy Council. That has been carefully thought out and it will serve well for the purpose.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Whatever this set of proposals does, it can hardly be argued that it will strengthen the United Kingdom, because surely the proposals strike at the most important principle of this country of ours—the equality of our votes. The proposals mean that the value of our vote will be different depending on where we live. Therefore, what we can expect to achieve by our vote is different. This involves a fundamental principle of democratic government for the Union, and the Labour Government are setting it aside. Many British citizens, such as I, will be outraged at the thought that my vote is diminished depending on where I live. It will now be different as to Wales, as to England and as to Scotland, and that principle will cause great difficulty for this proposal.

Mr. Dewar: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is outraged. I hope that I may be able to tell him to look at the matter more reasonably, even if we continue to disagree in the future. There will be no classes of parliamentarians here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, there will."] No, votes will not have different values. I say again that, if the hon. Gentleman believes in the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, he will see that what we propose is perfectly fair and sensible. I want the United Kingdom to wear well. I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman, although I might have made the point to one of his predecessors, over the fact that one of the difficulties in recent times has been the insensitivity of much of the government of this country. For example, I remember in particular the poll tax as one outstanding example of that.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I have already welcomed the plans, and I welcome them even more when I see the annoyance of Conservative Members, who imposed the poll tax on Scotland.
May I take this opportunity to welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about Labour's plans to achieve gender equality in the Scottish Parliament? Does he recall how that was dismissed out of hand 10 years ago as an improbable and unacceptable scheme, and now it is the prevailing orthodoxy in the Labour party? I look forward to other parties coming in behind us and realising that, in the 21st century, women will be equal, whether they like it or not.

Mr. Dewar: I hope that the women do like it.
I thank my hon. Friend for her words. I deliberately put in a passage about that matter in my statement. It is, of course, the business of political parties and not of statute, but I hope that there will be great changes in that respect, as, to be fair to the House, there were at the last election.

Mr. Eric Forth: How does the Secretary of State explain the grotesque overrepresentation that he proposes for the Scottish Parliament, bearing in mind the fact that, in comparison with the 129 members that he is apparently suggesting, his party proposes that a new London strategic authority should have only 24 to 30 members—and remembering that the population of London is bigger than that of Scotland? On the basis even of the historical Westminster representation, he proposes at least twice as many members as has been justified in the past. Will he give an undertaking that Governments will be able constantly to review the subventions from the English taxpayer to Scotland, bearing in mind the extravagance of the representation that he proposes?

Mr. Dewar: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that that is a small point from a small mind. To be fair, if we consider the great issues that are involved in this argument, however much I disagree with some of the points that have been made, they are substantial constitutional points. It seems that his point is of little moment, but I make it clear that we want a Parliament that will scrutinise effectively the legislation that it is passing and will be much more accessible and open to the public in Scotland than Parliament has traditionally been. I hope as well that we may even, if they can gather enough votes, see a few Conservatives among its number.

Mr. John McAllion: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the past century, no fewer than eight British Prime Ministers have at one time or another promised home rule for Scotland, without any one of them ever delivering on that promise? Therefore, like cats, British Prime Ministers are now on their ninth and last life, and they are aware of that.
I applaud and warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which at last begins to redeem the pledges to Scotland over the past century. I urge Scottish Members, wherever they sit in the House, on what is an historic day for our country, not to strike a sour note, but to come together and work together for the return of Scotland's Parliament to Scotland. At long last, our future is back in our own hands. If we fail now, it will be our own fault. Let us not fail. Let us carry the referendum and ensure that the future is Scottish.

Mr. Dewar: I know that my hon. Friend will act as he speaks, and I am grateful for that.

Mr. William Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman not remiss in not pointing out that the only party in the House that has direct practical experience of devolved government and its operation is the Ulster Unionist party? Is he aware that we know that the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament must work closely together to strengthen and to maintain the Union because, inevitably, the politics of Scotland, like the politics of Northern Ireland, will be increasingly


nationalist and unionist? In those circumstances, is the Labour party in Scotland, which will have members in a devolved institution, going to be a unionist party?

Mr. Dewar: I respect the hon. Gentleman's views, but they are understandably coloured by his deep involvement in the politics of his part of the United Kingdom. I do not accept his basic contention. The one thing that I want to avoid, and the one thing that the reform option helps to avoid, is the polarisation of politics into two choices at the extreme. That is exactly why reform is necessary and why better government is good for us all.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Although I warmly welcome the historic transfer of power from this House to the people of Scotland, can we take it that the principle of the sovereignty of the Scottish people means that the White Paper should not be seen as something handed down from on high on tablets of stone? I hope that the relationship between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments will be dynamic rather than static and that the dynamics may lead to the transfer of even more power to the Scottish Parliament, if that is what the people of Scotland want.

Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend's views are well known and all I can say is that this package is meant to be stable and enduring—I think that it will be. Of course, anyone is entitled to argue for political change at any time and in any way that they think is right. In about 1975, I gave up trying to persuade my hon. Friend that I was right and he was wrong. He is a man well known for going his own way. I am sure that, whatever he thinks, he will agree that this is a scheme of great promise, hope and potential. At least we can agree on that.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman allowed himself a moment of sentiment when he told us how long he had campaigned for a Scottish Parliament. I remind him that I first heard him make that case in 1960, and he therefore deserves congratulations for his perseverance. Does he share my curiosity at the fact that some of those who were most vocal in their support for the declaration of Perth by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) are now so vociferous in their opposition to these proposals?

Mr. Dewar: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman. I suppose I qualify as a long-distance runner in the political sense. I do remember those periods, and I remember our former colleagues, Malcolm Rifkind and Alick Buchanan-Smith—there is an honourable tradition.
On the record of the right hon. Member for Devizes, I would not try to deny the right of people to change their minds, but the significance of the fact that he once espoused devolution enthusiastically is that it puts a little bit of a question mark against the extreme view that he sometimes espouses now, which is that this is an unthinkable piece of chaos that could never possibly work. That was not his view in those days, and, in my opinion, it is not a credible or sensible view. I do not

expect him to go back to what he once believed, but he should look at his position and his credibility in the light of the beliefs that he once held.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, his Front-Bench team and the civil servants on the speed with which they have moved to bring this proposal—one of Labour's major promises to the people of Scotland—to the House. Will my right hon. Friend join me in warning Conservative Members that the people of Scotland are watching this statement and will be listening to the comments made? Very shortly, whether it likes it or not, the Conservative party will have to compete with all the other parties in the House for places in the Scottish Parliament. Unless it changes its mind fairly rapidly, there are liable to be as many Conservatives there as there are here.

Mr. Dewar: I noticed in The Herald today an article by a prominent Conservative, Mr. Brian Meek, in which he made it clear that he longed for the day when there would be a Scottish Parliament. He felt that his failure to join the Scottish Constitutional Convention had been one of the great political mistakes of his life, and he warned Conservatives that association with the no, no campaign would be a great mistake. He remarked, rather pithily, that they have backed enough losers this year to be getting on with.

Mr. William Cash: The White Paper states clearly that the Scottish Parliament and Executive will be responsible for devolved functions, including home affairs. Will he accept that the issue of home affairs comes within the pillars of the Maastricht treaty? Having regard to the fact that the White Paper also says that the Scottish Executive will have an opportunity to
participate in relevant meetings
and
in appropriate cases could speak for the United Kingdom",
will the Scottish Ministers be entitled to vote on those matters that fall within the devolved functions of home affairs within the third pillar? If they are not allowed to do so, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that they will be no more than puppets of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Dewar: I should be the last person to tackle the hon. Gentleman on European matters, because I might never emerge from the morass. We envisage that Scotland, the Scottish Parliament and, in particular, the Scottish Executive will be part of the process of consultation and decision making. No doubt a United Kingdom delegation will meet, and a United Kingdom line will emerge. That delegation will vote the agreed United Kingdom line. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing a total non-event with vigour—but that is the nature of the beast, I fear.

Mr. George Galloway: Notwithstanding the slightly demented braying from some of the Bourbons on the Conservative Benches, does my right hon. Friend accept that this is a great day for Scotland? Somewhere beyond the rafters, the whole host of heroes who, throughout this century, have stood and fought for home rule for Scotland—from Keir Hardie, the founder of the Scottish Labour party, through Tom


Johnston and all the way to our late, great fallen leader, John Smith—will be cheering my right hon. Friend. He has written his name into the history books by bringing forward this proposal.
On the subject of sensitivity and taxes, does my right hon. Friend accept that the greatest recruiting sergeant for the break-up of the United Kingdom has been 18 years of Thatcherite governments rammed down the throats of the people of Scotland—in no case more grotesquely than through the implementation of the poll tax, a whole year before it was implemented in England, on a people who not only never voted for it, but were never even invited to vote for it in the Tory election manifesto of 1983?

Mr. Dewar: I certainly recognise my hon. Friend's point about the experiences of recent years under another Government. I am a little nervous about my place in history as he described. I saw the other day, in a well-known Scottish newspaper, a picture that I instantly and cleverly identified as myself, under which appeared the caption, "A modern Robert the Bruce". I have to confess that I took to my bed for the rest of the day.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The average size of a Greater London parliamentary constituency is 67,000 electors. That of a Glasgow seat is fewer than 52,000. The White Paper does not do anything about that anti-English bias for the next general election or the general election thereafter. I recognise that it is in the interests of the Labour party to delay change, but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are now members of a Government who have a higher duty—that of fairness to all the United Kingdom, including England. Why has he not introduced plans to remedy that constitutional injustice in time for the next general election?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman has obviously given a great deal of thought to the matter, so he will have considered the practicalities. He, as a democrat and a careful Member of the House, will want the proper processes of consultation and appeal in place. He will then see exactly what the timetable is. First, there is a requirement for primary legislation to make the proposal possible. Then, there needs to be the proper and due processes. We will follow them, but we will not unduly delay.
It is, perhaps, of some importance that the hon. Gentleman is a London Member. I congratulate him on his party's decision to endorse a London government and an elected mayor for London. Perhaps he should consider why, if that is good, it should not also be good to have an elected authority in Scotland.

Dr. Tony Wright: This has been described as a great day for Scotland. As an English Member and a Unionist, I should like to say that it is a great day for the Union, too. Scotland has had the capacity to break the Union. It would have been possible to come forward with proposals that threatened the Union. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on making sure that his proposals do not threaten the Union. Will he now bend his considerable energies to trying to persuade the Conservatives that the choice is between preserving the Union with the White Paper or breaking it with them?

Mr. Dewar: I know that my hon. Friend has spent a great deal of time looking at constitutional systems, and

is an expert in the matter. I value his opinion and have a great deal of sympathy with his point. Perhaps for political reasons—I know not—some Conservative Members have forced themselves into the position of defending a status quo that is clearly becoming very threadbare and indefensible, not just in Scotland, but in other parts of the country.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Secretary of State was right to point out that those who seek to defend the Union have a responsibility to explain how the demand for reform should be met. They have not done so.
The Secretary of State has come forward with proposals that, for me, as a federalist, address the need to balance the aspirations of the people of Scotland and the future of the United Kingdom. Will he take it from me that there can be no doubt left in anyone's mind that the people of Scotland will be well represented in Scotland by Members elected to the Scottish Parliament and will continue to play a major role in the United Kingdom through the Members elected to this place? Anyone who says any different has clearly not read the proposals.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that important point.

Miss Anne Begg: The White Paper proposes an historic Parliament. One reason is that it will be elected by a form of proportional representation, which is of supreme importance to people in the north-east of Scotland. The people of Aberdeen will know that their voice will be heard loud and clear. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a supreme irony in the Conservatives being against the constitutional changes which may save the Scottish Conservative party from political oblivion?

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Such charitable work by the Labour party is admirable, but perhaps we should go about it quietly. She has made an important point, which I tried to hint at in my statement. We are trying to get a due and proper reflection of opinion throughout Scotland. There may be some odd beneficiaries, but if the principle is right, we should stand by it.

Mr. Stephen Day: I am sure that the Secretary of State will concede that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament is but part of the Government's strategy to set up regional Parliaments throughout the United Kingdom, including England. Given that that fits exactly with the blueprint of European federalists for a Europe of the regions, destroying the concept of the nation state, how can the White Paper be the salvation of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Dewar: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman looked at the situation and opinion in Scotland, he might understand a little more about the issue. I do not say that in hostility. He is obviously not steeped in the issue, as many of my hon. Friends are. We are not going to be prescriptive on regional government. We have made it clear that we believe that there is a case for passing power to other areas of the United Kingdom, as we are doing in Scotland


and Wales, but we would want to tailor any scheme to the needs of the area and be satisfied that there was consent and a wish for such a reform.

Mr. Thomas Graham: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his tenacity and on the tremendous deed of introducing the White Paper today against a background of 18 years of Toryism. I have a genuine plea to make to my right hon. Friend. This is a great day for the people of Scotland, especially for the children. We fought the general election on the basis of delivering a Scottish Parliament. Today, our children have seen something in which they can take part. I suggest that 11 September should be known as Devolution Day and that all the children in Scotland should be off school so that they can help their mothers and fathers and make sure that we have a yes, yes vote. Can we give our young kids a celebratory day in which we can all take part? We can show these folk that the people of Scotland will say yes, yes.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who always has something interesting to say. I hope that he will not take my remarks amiss. I agree with him entirely about the importance of the younger generation and about the importance of these proposals for the future. On 11 September, I shall be surprisingly uninterested in children, although I shall be very interested in what their parents are doing. I very much hope that, however they intend to vote, they will take the trouble to vote so that we get a fair test of public opinion on an enormously important issue for Scotland.

Mrs. Ray Michie: May I ask the Secretary of State about something he said on radio this morning? Will he comment on the choice of the title First Minister for the Scottish Parliament? What alternatives were discarded?
I, too, warmly welcome the White Paper, which I see as a cause for celebration because it is the first concrete step to returning democracy to Scotland and to re-establishing our Scottish Parliament. I hope that the carping criticism and the doom and gloom merchants will be thoroughly routed on 11 September.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has fought hard and long in the cause and who has travelled many a long and, I suspect, weary mile with me and with others. We need, of course, to have a term that we can use in legislation and in preliminary documentation. The title First Minister seems sensible, but if other people have other ideas, we can adjust the proposal in time. I hope that no one will take it amiss if I say that the important thing is to get the show on the road. After many years of talk, that is my aim and my objective.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Secretary of State agree that those who threaten the Union are not those who support devolution, but those who support the status quo? The status quo is not tenable as an alternative at present. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that what we need now is a united double yes campaign? Any of those who have spoken long and loud

about their support for a Scottish Parliament who do not support a double yes campaign will be found wanting by the people of Scotland.
Will my right hon. Friend please desist from trying to persuade the Tories to support our initiative? What we need to rally our supporters is Tory opposition. Nothing is more guaranteed to bring out Labour, nationalist and Liberal Democrat voters for a double yes campaign than the opposition of the Tories. I understand that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), in line with the renovation of the Tory party, is going to propose a new voting system for elections to the Scottish Parliament of one acre, one vote. I understand that his family would then control the Parliament virtually on their own.

Mr. Dewar: It is a splendid idea, and I will ensure that the Department writes a paper tomorrow. My hon. Friend wittily makes a point of some substance, but not one for which the cure is in my hands. I am very interested in maximising support and in getting people motivated to turn out for the vote. I reluctantly decided that the suggested slogan, "Yes, yes, make mine a double," although quite attractive in some parts of the Scottish community, was not entirely appropriate.

Mr. John Greenway: One might equally say, "Make mine a Dewar on the rocks," because the Secretary of State has failed to answer any serious question about the structure of what he has proposed. May I put another one to him? Does not what he has proposed mean that there will be no revising chamber for all the legislation that the new Parliament will pass? If so, who is going to vet and revise criminal law, notwithstanding the differences between English, Welsh and Scottish criminal law, which have existed for centuries? This House and the other place have ensured consistency of criminal law throughout the United Kingdom in recent years. What he has proposed means that that cannot be guaranteed under the new arrangement, which can only be bad for Scotland as well as for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dewar: I think that we should agree on a moratorium on whisky jokes, particularly in the light of the name of the present leader of the Tory party. I can think of several likely runners, but I will not let them loose.
The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. As he will know, the House of Lords as a court does not have any remit in the Scottish criminal law, but it does in the civil law of Scotland, and I would expect that to continue. I accept that there is a particular duty on the Scottish Parliament to look very seriously at its own scrutiny proposals. It is very important that we look at pre-legislative scrutiny and much wider consultation. There is a particular duty on us to get the law right, and I think that that might concentrate the mind.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the electoral system is also important in this respect. The perhaps more accurate representation—although it will have advantages and disadvantages about which we can all argue—is relevant in considering the point about scrutiny and the fairness of the decision-making process.

Ms Rachel Squire: I also warmly welcome the publication of the White Paper on the


Scottish Parliament, and pay tribute to the hard work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, his ministerial team and the Scottish Office have put into producing it. Yet again, we have delivered one of the promises made in our election manifesto.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposals have the potential of representing the most radical constitutional change since, after centuries of struggle and against fierce opposition from the Conservative party, we finally secured the right to vote for every man and woman? Does he also agree that a massive yes, yes vote on 11 September will help us to change the face of politics, give people a greater voice in the decisions that affect their everyday lives and lead to a strengthening of democracy and the United Kingdom as a whole?

Mr. Dewar: I do agree with my hon. Friend that this is a measure of great importance. I would never pretend to the House that it was a minor matter of only Scottish interest. That would be totally wrong. I also agree with her about the democratic point. The case for this change is essentially a democratic one—whether or not it is accepted by the people. It is about democracy and the involvement of people in the process of government.
I say with no great animus, but just as a matter of historical observation, that, if we go back through the 20th century into the 19th century, it is fair to say that the Conservative party has opposed almost every important constitutional reform ever proposed—although, to its credit, within a few years, it claims the reforms as part of the warp and woof of the British constitution, which it would die in the ditch to preserve.

Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Secretary of State accept that the enduring success or otherwise of the proposals that he has put before the House will depend as much on the active support and enthusiasm of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish people as the Scottish people? What, therefore, can I say to my constituents, given that, although a Scottish Member of Parliament—Scotland will remain grossly over-represented in this place for many years to come—will have direct influence over the affairs of Worcestershire and England, that self-same Scottish Member of Parliament and I will have no influence whatever over exactly the same issues north of the border?

Mr. Dewar: The Scottish Parliament will not be here until 2000, so we will not have an immediate change in that respect. When the Scottish Parliament is up, there will be a balanced and fairer package that will involve the other changes that I have mentioned. I may have got the hon. Gentleman wrong, but I suspect that he is one of the Members who on occasion, as the hours have ticked into the morning, have suggested to me that it is unfortunate that they are stuck in the House voting on Scottish legislation. We will at least be saving him from that.

Mr. Eric Clarke: As a former miners' leader and a trade union member for many years, may I thank my right hon. Friend for the White Paper on behalf of the trade union movement? We have fought long and hard for many years to get devolution on the statute book to ensure that the people of Scotland have a proper say. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper

will lead to the strengthening, not the weakening, of the Union? I remember that, historically, those people over there on the Conservative Benches fought against the emancipation of women for many years. I wonder how many times they have to be wrong before they are ever right.

Mr. Dewar: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, and I am grateful to him. I am conscious of the contribution that many of my colleagues in the trade union movement have made to this debate over the years. Indeed, some of his colleagues in the National Union of Mineworkers—Mick McGahey, George Bolton and many others—have argued the case long and hard. Fortunately, they were not alone, and we now have a real prospect of progress.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Is the Secretary of State aware that British people who have lived outside Britain for less than 20 years had the right to vote in the recent general election? Given that that was the basis on which his party won a number of seats, why will the Secretary of State not give a right to vote in the referendum to Scottish people who happen to have lived outside Scotland for less than 20 years? Why is he afraid to consult all Scottish people about his proposals for a Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Dewar: The number excluded would be very small. We went for a residency test, which will be familiar to the hon. Lady, and that was right. We have taken the register that will give the biggest, all-encompassing electorate. I do not know whether she is a Scot—

Mrs. Laing: indicated assent.

Mr. Dewar: I do not know anything about her, but I have so many old friends missing these days from the Conservative Benches that I wander lonely in the corridors. The residency test is sensible and straightforward, and will provide the largest electorate available in Scotland. It will include some peers whom she may know, and that will be nice. Before the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) gets too excited, I am told that only 123 peers are entitled to vote, and I will stand the risk.

Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: May I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the publication of a document that has been long awaited? We are on the threshold of the most exciting change in the constitution of this country for at least 300 years. I also thank him for the hour and a quarter's entertainment that we have had this afternoon, because I think that everyone has enjoyed it. Does he agree that thanks are due to the Constitutional Convention, of which I have been a member since the beginning, as have many other hon. Members?
Conservative Members perhaps do not understand that what is on offer is a modern Parliament appropriate to the next century, and that the nature of politics in this country will be changed completely. They will have much to learn from the new Parliament.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has worked hard on the project for a long time. I recognize


that it is a big project and no one can give a guarantee on delivery. I believe that the Parliament will make a contribution and that it will be a success. I hope that we will have good will and support. I am greatly encouraged—I say this in no false sense—that we have heard statements from the Scottish Conservative party that, if the Parliament is set up, it will contest seats and contribute to its working. That is an important point, and I welcome it.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: I congratulate the Secretary of State on producing a White Paper that will produce a Parliament for which we can campaign whole-heartedly and together, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said. I also congratulate the Conservatives on their consistency. They continue to show exactly the same attitude that caused them to lose every seat in Scotland.

Mr. Luff: We got more votes than you did.

Mr. Gorrie: The Conservatives contested those seats under an electoral system that they supported. It killed them off and they are now complaining. They have showed the flattest learning curve in history.
May I ask the Secretary of State for some clarification on local government? Will the Scottish Parliament be able to alter the voting system for Scottish local government to make it more sensible? Will it be able to alter the financial arrangements so that, for example, local authority self-financed expenditure may be treated as outside the control total, which is the more sensible system that obtains in continental Europe?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that local government is a devolved responsibility and, therefore, the Parliament will be able to consider the organisation of local government finance in Scotland. I do not, however, hold out the hope that it will be able unilaterally to change its relationship with the United Kingdom Treasury. That would be a startling innovation, and one which I could not endorse.

Dr. Liam Fox: It cannot be long before the Liberal Democrats are sued under the Trade Descriptions Act for calling themselves an Opposition party. The Labour party has had 18 years to get the details of the arrangement right and the Secretary of State must not dismiss the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The right hon. Gentleman says that the relationship between Parliament and this place will be dynamic: we say that it will be unstable.
The Secretary of State for Scotland will be the messenger boy for the Parliament in Edinburgh. He will pick up the shopping list of the Scottish Parliament and bring it down to his Cabinet colleagues in London to ask for the money to take back, although he will have no say over how it is spent. When the money runs out, the Secretary of State and the Westminster Parliament will be blamed, not the Scottish Parliament. That is a recipe for instability.
We have heard nothing from Labour and Liberal Democrat Members who were elected on 1 May on the issues of health, education and housing. They said that

those were the most important issues because they had been done to death by 20 years of wicked Tory government. [Interruption.] They cheer now, but those are the very powers that they propose to give to a separate Scottish Parliament. What will they do here? Will they follow the powers back to a Scottish Parliament? Or will they remain here, debating issues that, before 1 May, they said were of secondary importance? If that happens, there will be an air of hypocrisy hanging around the Chamber.
Not much has been said about the costs detailed in the White Paper, in that the Scottish Parliament will have the right to raise not only council tax but business rates. When it raises income tax, or its "guaranteed amount", as the White Paper calls it, Ministers may smile, because there is only one group that is guaranteed on a residency basis not to pay that tax—Ministers legally deemed to live in London. It is fine for everyone else in Scotland to pay the tax, but not for Ministers.
The Scottish people will get a bill for a Parliament not yet designed, on a site not yet designated, to deal with issues that their Members of Parliament already deal with; and it is all to provide them with the one thing that I would have thought no one in this day and age wanted: more politicians and bureaucrats.
As the Secretary of State confirmed, members of the Scottish Executive will be able to speak for the United Kingdom, although they are not answerable to the House.

Mr. Dewar: indicated dissent

Dr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but his exact words were:
Ministers in the Scottish Executive will have an opportunity to participate in relevant meetings of the Council of Ministers and in appropriate cases could speak for the United Kingdom.
That is profoundly undemocratic. Moreover, does it not fulfil Labour's other agenda—a Europe of the regions by stealth, and the destruction of the nation state?
Above all, the Secretary of State could not answer the question he was asked several times. There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman's looking across the Chamber at his alternative colleagues in government on the Liberal Democrat Benches. He must answer the question, and I shall give him one more opportunity. Why, after devolution, should Scottish Members of Parliament be able to vote on issues that affect England and Wales, when neither they themselves nor English and Welsh Members of Parliament can vote on Scottish issues? Does that not make a mockery of a Union Parliament?
The Prime Minister promised us a Bill; we got a brochure. The whole thing is a complete shambles. If this is the Government's flagship legislation, we shudder to think what the rest will be like.

Mr. Dewar: It occurs to me that the hon. Gentleman was unwise to talk about the Trade Descriptions Act; after all, he describes himself as a Scottish Opposition spokesman. What he said was not so much a question as a rant, and he should go away and read the scheme rather more carefully. For example, he said that the Scottish Parliament would raise the council tax. But council tax is under the control of local government. If he sees that as a terrible conspiracy, he must lead a very frightened life.
The only question that the hon. Gentleman asked that seemed of much relevance was the one about Scottish Members' right to continue to vote in the House. I have


already told him, and I hope that he accepts what I say, that, if the House is sovereign, and decides to order its business, because it believes that that will increase the democratic content of British politics, by devolving some of its powers to a Scottish Parliament, that is perfectly legitimate and constitutionally proper.
I repeat that that needs to be seen in the context of a balanced package, which I believe will be widely accepted. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman does not accept that, but it is my belief. We shall have to continue the argument on another occasion, when I hope that he will be better prepared.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That was a very—

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Points of order will come after the second statement.
The statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland was very important, and we rightly spent a considerable time on it. We must now move on to the business statement.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Business for next week.
MONDAY 28 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 29 JULY—Completion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 30 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, the first of which is the three-hour general debate that precedes a recess.
Supplemental allocation of time motion relating to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill.
THURSDAY 31 JULY—Debate on the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament", on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
Subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Thursday 31 July until Monday 27 October. The provisional business for the first week back after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 OCTOBER and TUESDAY 28 OCTOBER—
Debate on British defence policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 29 OCTOBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Wireless Telegraphy Bill [Lords].
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill.
THURSDAY 30 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 31 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.
The House will be aware that the Minister without Portfolio has already made it clear that he will answer questions in the House on his specific responsibilities within Government for the millennium experience at Greenwich. In order to facilitate that commitment, it is intended that after the summer recess he will have a short regular place on the rota, to answer questions on the millennium experience at the end of questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. That will ensure that there will be a regular opportunity to put questions on that specific topic.
May I also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, say a word about the statement made in the House yesterday? I understand that copies of Sir Ron Dearing's report were not immediately available in the Vote Office when the Secretary of State for Education and Employment made his statement. My right hon. Friend had ensured that copies of the 54-page summary of the report were available to Members, and that copies of the full report were placed in the Library.


In addition, a pamphlet summarising the main recommendations and the Government's plans for the future was sent to all hon. Members.
However, given the huge interest in the matter, copies of the full report were placed in the Vote Office shortly after the end of the statement. I think that those should have been available from the beginning of the statement, and I regret any inconvenience caused to Members.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. She could not better have illustrated her Government's disdain for the parliamentary process, nor their inability to manage their own legislative programme, than by her breathtaking announcement that she plans to keep the House in recess until the end of October—simply, I assume, because she and her colleagues are too incompetent to organise their own business.
It is curious that the right hon. Lady has combined that announcement with the fact that, between now and the end of the Session, she intends to introduce the third guillotine in eight weeks. I hope that she will be able to explain to the House the consequences of that particular incompetence for the rest of the parliamentary year.
However, I am sure that we are all delighted to know that the Minister without Portfolio will be explaining his plans for the dome. That is indeed something to which we will all look forward. Perhaps we could even come back early for the pleasure.
Sadly, last week I had to remind the right hon. Lady of her responsibilities to the whole House. It is now clear that the Government's spin doctor machine operates entirely independently of her. Even if she wished to involve the House in announcements and in changes in policy, and to protect its interests and those of all hon. Members, it is clear that she has not the power to do so.
Nevertheless, will the Leader of the House belatedly arrange for a debate next week on the new Cabinet consultative committee to be chaired by the Prime Minister and to include Liberal Democrat Members, the establishment of which was announced on Tuesday to the press but not to this House? Will she ensure that such a debate addresses the concerns of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—who is in his place—who correctly pointed out that such an arrangement should be announced to the House so that its implications can be examined?
In particular, does membership of such a committee mean that the Liberal Democrats can continue to enjoy the rights of Opposition parties? Can a Liberal Democrat spokesman ask questions with knowledge acquired from the Government that he cannot disclose to the House?
Will the Leader of the House confirm that, according to his reply yesterday to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, the Prime Minister's criterion for policy change is:
I say that if it is the right thing to do, why not do it?"—[Official Report, 23 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 943.]
Will she explain how such an attitude accords with parliamentary democracy?
Can we have an early debate on the Dearing report? Would the Leader of the House point out to the House the reference in her party's manifesto which lays out the

Government's intention—using the Secretary of State's own costings—to charge all higher education students £10,000 for their university education? Will she explain how such an intention accords with the sentiment in her party's manifesto—to make higher education more accessible for all students?
Can we have a debate next week on the Government's plans to introduce a national minimum wage? Will the Leader of the House confirm that the President of the Board of Trade intends to propose legislation before advice on the level of the wage is received from the Low Pay Commission—despite promises to the contrary in Labour's manifesto, its business manifesto, its small business document, its industry policy paper and countless statements from Labour Members, including the Prime Minister?
When can we expect the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to make a statement on the outcome of the review of defence exports and, in particular, on whether sales of jets to Indonesia continue?
Finally, when does the Leader of the House intend to publish the report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons?

Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) asked first about the length of the recess, and she will not be surprised to learn that I have checked what has happened in previous years. The length of the recess on this occasion is no different from the length of the first summer recess after the 1992 general election, which her party won. It is not an unusual length of recess. We have done a remarkable amount in the first three months of this Parliament—perhaps more than has been done before in such a period. We have introduced 18 Bills and we expect six Bills to receive Royal Assent before the summer recess. We have also published White Papers and made statements in the House on four separate issues.
A lot has been achieved, but I make no secret of the fact that, following a change of Government, there is not the usual length of time to draft new legislation. There is still a long way to go in terms of the drafting work which would normally take place on an on-going basis but, in this instance, could not start until May of this year. I make no promises about the length of the recess on other occasions.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with the issue of the Cabinet committee yesterday, and said that the membership of it—once decided—would be announced to the House. I should remind the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk that on the very same day that the Cabinet committee was announced, the Liberal Democrats—not the Conservative party—opposed us in the lobbies on the Social Security Bill. We should not draw too many implications from the creation of the committee.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk referred to the Dearing report, published yesterday, which she called for when she was the Secretary of State for Education. We have been interested in the amount of support that we have received from Conservative Members—particularly those who were Education Ministers. There is a case for debating that report, but I am not sure whether we can find time for such a debate when we come back. The Select Committee on Education


and Employment—or the Conservative party—may decide to make inquiries and call for a debate on the matter.
I can confirm that the level of the minimum wage will not be set before advice from the Low Pay Commission has been received. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk's question on defence and other matters can be dealt with in the two-day defence debate that we will have in October when we return.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk's final question was on the Modernisation Committee. I can confirm that the first reports of the Committee will be published next Tuesday. If I might change the mood of our exchanges today, I must say that we have had a good working Committee and we have received co-operation from Members on both sides of the Committee.

Mrs. Shephard: indicated assent.

Mrs. Taylor: That is why we have been able to produce a report which I hope the House will welcome when it is published on Tuesday.

Mr. David Winnick: Unlike Tory Members, I have often complained about the length of the summer recess. Perhaps this matter could be looked at by the Modernisation Committee so that, in future, we do not break up for three months and come back for just a few weeks before Christmas.
It has been reported widely today that the Home Secretary is to set up a commission of inquiry into the case of Stephen Lawrence, who was stabbed to death. I welcome that decision. Can we have a statement from the Home Secretary on Monday, giving the terms of reference of the commission? It is essential that justice is done in this case, in which a person was put to death for no other reason than the colour of his skin.

Mrs. Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend has been consistent in his view about the recess. The rest of the parliamentary Session following our return in October will be extremely busy, and that is why I make no promises about future recesses.
As for to the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Home Secretary is considering how to address the matter, and the House will be informed of his conclusions in due course.

Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving the details of the publication of the report by the Modernisation Committee. When are the report's recommendations likely to be debated in the House? She has recognised that there will be a heavy legislative work load immediately after the recess. Will she assure us that there will be proper timetabling of legislation to be considered? Will she also assure us that, before the recess, we will have an indication of the timetabling of questions to Ministers? Finally, in view of the statement by the shadow Leader of the House, can we have an urgent debate on the length of the shadow Leader of the House's questions?

Mrs. Taylor: I think not on the last point. I do not want to go into too much detail in advance of the publication of the Modernisation Committee's report, but we have taken

our task seriously and come up with what we think are positive working proposals to improve the legislative process in this House. I hope that the House as a whole will agree to act on our representations, which will be for the benefit of the House. We hope to make progress as soon as possible.

Helen Jackson: As one of our firm commitments at the election was to ensure full disclosure of donations to all political parties, and as Lord Nolan has said that his committee does not have the time at the moment to discuss this matter, what thought has my right hon. Friend given to how the Government can help the Conservative party's members along the path towards agreeing among themselves to make full public disclosure of party donations?

Mrs. Taylor: Far be it from me to advise the Conservative party on its internal workings, but I welcome the outbreak of glasnost from the Leader of the Opposition, belated and limited though it may be. I cannot promise a debate on the matter in the near future, but there will be opportunities to debate the funding of political parties, because we still intend to introduce measures on the subject.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What will be the terms of reference for the debate on Scottish devolution and the White Paper? It is extremely difficult for hon. Members to ask questions of the Scottish Office or anyone else about the amount given in the Scottish block grant from the Barnett formula. The Leader of the House will know that, in setting up that formula, his noble Friend Lord Barnett was trying to deal with what the then Government said—and the last Government agreed—was a democratic deficit.
If that deficit is being reversed for England, we should have a full debate about the Barnett formula. I seek an assurance that we can have not only a debate but a vote, so that English Members of Parliament, whether Government or Opposition Members, can justify giving Scotland both an independent Parliament and 25 per cent. extra for local government, health and other matters.

Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was giving a trailer of the speech that he hopes to make next Thursday, should he be fortunate enough to catch Madam Speaker's eye. I want to take issue with him on one point: he said that it was difficult to ask questions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland; not only is it easy, because he often makes himself available, but he gives extremely good-quality answers.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Has my right hon. Friend read the recent reports that the director general of the Royal Opera house is in receipt of a rather handsome £10,000-per-month salary, made worse by the fact that he is no longer working at the opera house, which is closed? Are there any plans for a statement? Right now, it seems that only the fat cats are singing on the matter.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an issue that has caused considerable concern. I understand that the payments are in line with Sir Jeremy Isaacs's contract; those arrangements were agreed when the previous


Government were in office, and the situation is clearly unsatisfactory. I understand that the basis of the contract is to be changed.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will there be an oral statement by the Deputy Prime Minister on Monday about the outcome of the accelerated roads programme review? Is the Leader of the House aware that, last Monday, Madam Speaker expressed grave disquiet at the way in which the House was being bypassed by the Government in making important announcements?
Yesterday, at the Local Government Association conference in Manchester, the Deputy Prime Minister was asked in an open forum about the outcome of the M25 review, and he said that he could not answer because he had to tell the House first. By yesterday evening, the headline on the television news was his announcement that the M66 around Manchester was to be completed, and it is clear from today's newspapers that he has already made substantial announcements about the outcome of that review. Does that not show that the Deputy Prime Minister has a cynical disregard for Madam Speaker's rulings? What does the Leader of the House intend to do to protect the interests of all hon. Members?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is misleading—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am sorry, I meant to say that he was inadvertently misleading the House in his interpretation of Madam Speaker's comments. Her criticisms were not on the basis that he suggested. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister about the matter, and he shares my concern about the amount of speculation. The reports in the press seem to contradict one another, and that in itself suggests that the story is not the result of deliberate leaking. My right hon. Friend will make his decisions known to the House.

Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on bus re-regulation? I am sure that she was horrified to hear last week of the massive hike in profits of Stagecoach plc that has been almost entirely brought about by worsening conditions and wages for the work force in my constituency, and by a further deterioration in bus services.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes his point well, and I am sure that his constituents share his concerns. I will bring those concerns to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, but I cannot promise an early debate.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am happy to note that the Northern Ireland Select Committee is at least on the Order Paper, but will there be time for the Committee to meet, select a Chairman and plan its business, or will it have to wait until we come back in October? Why is the gestation period for the Northern Ireland Grand Committee so much longer than that of the other Grand Committees, which are already in session?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows something of the history of the discussions. We are glad that we have reached agreement on the composition of the Select

Committee, and that could be implemented early next week, which, at least in theory, and we hope in practice, would enable the Committee to meet next week.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend allow time in the near future—next week, if possible—for a debate on energy and an energy programme? A substantial number of hon. Members have concerns and anxieties about the unfair charging for fuels for generating electricity. Is she aware that next Monday there is to be a lobby of people who are employed in the mining industry, asking for fairness and justice in the pricing of fuels for generating energy? Many reports are available that can explain the unfairness that obtains at present. Will my right hon. Friend take note of the concerns and find time for a discussion?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has raised the matter before, so I know his concerns. He may be able to air the subject in Trade and Industry Questions on Thursday or in the Adjournment debate on Wednesday, but I am afraid that the Government cannot find time for the early debate that he wants.

Mr. Michael Moore: Claridge Mills, a textile manufacturer in my constituency, went into liquidation this week, with the loss of 50 jobs, which is obviously a devastating blow to the employees and their families and to the people of Selkirk, where the company was based. Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on the issues surrounding the company's collapse, so that we can seek assurances from Scottish Office Ministers that they will work with Borders Enterprise, Borders council and the other relevant agencies, such as the Benefits Agency, to ensure that the problems in Selkirk are alleviated as soon as possible?

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that Scottish Office Ministers will hope, and be willing, to help as far as possible. I do not think that I can find time for a debate, but the hon. Gentleman may be able to raise the matter on Wednesday morning, in the open three-hour Adjournment debate.

Mr. Tom Levitt: I for one am looking forward to spending October working hard in my constituency. Let no observer leave this debate thinking that my right hon. Friend has granted us additional holidays.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that beef farmers in High Peak, as elsewhere, still have many concerns about the impact of BSE on their livelihood and their industry, whether about levels of consumption of home-grown or imported material, about standards of hygiene in abattoirs or about the disposal of fallen stock. A statement of reassurance is needed. Will she invite my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement on his discussions in the European Community, which by all accounts have been so successful?

Mrs. Taylor: First, I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the work that hon. Members do in the recess. People who think that the recesses are an open holiday are far from knowing the real situation. On BSE, the House should welcome the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.


The way in which he went about those negotiations in Europe recently was far more productive than anything that we saw from the previous Government, and it is a good sign for the future.

Mr. Tim Collins: Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement and debate on the operation of the office costs allowance, given that the creation of a Scottish Parliament would mean that Scottish Members of this House would shuffle off about 80 per cent. of their constituency case load elsewhere, so I am sure that there will have to be a statement on appropriate cuts in their allowance?

Mrs. Taylor: No, Sir.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I gently press my right hon. Friend, for the third time I think, on the need for a debate on Nirex and the future of radioactive waste disposal in the United Kingdom? I wonder whether she is in a position to give an assurance that, before any decisions are taken on the future of Nirex, there will be a full debate in Parliament.

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure about a full debate in Parliament, but there will certainly be opportunities for hon. Members to make their ideas, concerns and opinions heard by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend, who is very experienced, will, I think, find many opportunities to raise that issue.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Following on from the right hon. Lady's remarks about the non-availability of the Dearing report in the Vote Office yesterday, is she aware that the part of the report that deals with Scotland is published as a separate volume? Not only was that volume not available yesterday, but it is still not available today, and the Vote Office did not know this morning of its existence. Given that fact and the fact that the arrangements for higher education in Scotland are different, would it not be appropriate to have an early debate on the effects of the Dearing proposals on Scotland?

Mrs. Taylor: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that that is a separate report, and was not necessarily totally a part of what was being discussed yesterday. All the relevant material should have been available, however. If it was not, I apologise. I said earlier that it was wrong that the full report was not available straight away—having the reports in the Library is not sufficient. I have brought that matter to the attention of my colleagues, because I do not think that that should happen.

Mr. John Austin: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a report published today by the health service trade union, MSF—the Manufacturing Science Finance Union—based on statistics drawn from the Department of Health census of the non-medical work force, which show that 40 per cent. of NHS employers have failed for the third year running to produce a return for the Department on the ethnic composition of their work force? In view of her commitment to equal opportunities—unlike the Conservative party—will she find time for the Secretary

of State for Health to come to the House to say whether the performance bonus of chief executives of failing trusts and authorities will be reviewed in view of their failure to perform?

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot promise a statement or a debate, but I assure my hon. Friend that I will bring his remarks and concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who I am sure will be somewhat worried about the information that my hon. Friend has given us.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the right hon. Lady arrange an urgent debate so that we can hear the truth behind the apparently shady deal between her right hon. Friends in the Government and certain elements of the Liberal Democrat party? If it is true, it will surely have profound parliamentary and constitutional implications in ways that many of us cannot yet foresee. Surely the right hon. Lady must accept that that matter has such implications for Parliament—for example, where the Liberal Democrats should sit; if they are in bed with the Government, surely they should be on the Government Benches—as will all the matters which will flow from it and which are, as yet, completely unconsidered. Will she please give that some urgent thought?

Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman managed to say that with a straight face, but I am not sure that it is a serious point. I mentioned earlier that, on the very day that that agreement was announced, the Liberal Democrats—not the Conservative party—voted against the Government at 10 o'clock on the Social Security Bill. Perhaps I could remind the right hon. Gentleman that we were grateful for what he said about welcoming the Dearing report yesterday.

Ann Clwyd: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 201, which has 130 signatures and argues against arms sales to Indonesia?
[That this House believes that human rights should be at the forefront of decisions on arms exports; notes the appalling human rights record of the Indonesian Government; further notes that Indonesia has illegally occupied East Timor since 1975 in contravention of United Nations resolutions; further notes that United Kingdom made military, security and police equipment has been used by the Indonesian authorities, in breach of assurances given by them, against civilians in Indonesia and East Timor; believes that any further equipment exported is likely to be similarly used; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to stop the export of all military, police and security equipment to Indonesia, and to withdraw the invitations approved by the Conservative Government last year to the Commander in Chief of the Indonesian Armed Forces, and the Army and Navy Chiefs of Staff, to visit the Royal Naval and British Army Equipment Exhibition in Farnborough in September.]
Does she know that the Nobel peace prize winner, Jose Ramos Horta, the campaigner for East Timor, last week addressed the parliamentary human rights group in the House? He drew attention to the fact that things are worse than ever in East Timor—as bad as they were in 1975—and that torture, imprisonment and violence are endemic


in that country. He asked for a freeze on arms sales to Indonesia. In view of the rumours in the press about the imminent sale of Hawk aircraft and in view of the Government's commitment to human rights, may we have a statement on that important issue before the House rises? It would be regrettable if a statement were made and a decision taken to sell the Hawk aircraft while the House was in recess.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has a long interest in that matter. As she said, the reports in the press are rumours. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with that question yesterday and made it clear that any decision to revoke licences issued by the previous Government would have to be announced to the House. The matter is still under review, in terms of the new criteria that we have laid down, and the House will be informed in due course.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Given that the House will be away for 12 weeks, will the Leader of the House give thought to extending Prime Minister's Question Time next week, to enable us to put to the Prime Minister a number of issues that remain unresolved? One is the question of the sale of armaments to Indonesia.
Another is that it has only just come to light that a letter from the President of the Commission to the Spanish Foreign Minister makes it clear that the United Kingdom Government never sought any changes or derogations to the treaty in relation to quota hoppers at Amsterdam, but simply clarification of existing European Union law. How on earth that can be seen to be the great triumph that the Minister sought to present it as after he returned from Amsterdam, it is difficult to follow. Perhaps we could have an extended Prime Minister's questions, next Wednesday—a bumper bonanza, sorting out all those issues before the House rises for the recess.

Mrs. Taylor: Given the performance of the previous Administration and their abject failure in Europe on all those issues in Europe, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has had the cheek to ask that question, although it allows me to remind the House of the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture only this week. The hon. Gentleman asked for a change in the format of Prime Minister's questions—he wanted them lengthened because there is to be a long recess. As I pointed out, we have had equally long recesses before, with no consequential changes to Prime Minister's questions.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement next week on the Government's attitude towards oil exploration on the Atlantic shelf and the environmental destruction occasioned by oil exploration and pollution in the seas? That is a matter of great concern. There is obvious concern that decisions may be taken during the recess, which will have far-reaching implications for the pollution of the Atlantic.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is another experienced Member. I am sure that he will find ways to raise that

issue, not least because it is Environment questions on Tuesday and Trade and Industry questions on Thursday. I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate.

Mr. John Butterfill: Will the right hon. Lady find time for an early debate on the need to defend the mutual financial institutions of this country? I am sure that she will be aware of the greedy and avaricious band of predators, led by the inappropriately named Mr. Hardern. I hope that she will be able to give the House an opportunity to discuss measures by which those activities could be curtailed. I think that she will join me in congratulating members of the Nationwide building society for showing that common sense and altruism are not entirely dead in the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Lady will be aware that Mr. Hardern has said that he proposes to move on to every other mutual building society and that when he has finished with them he will move on to friendly societies and credit unions. Is it not time that something was done?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may have alarmed the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who gets worried when there is agreement across the Chamber. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He will have noted the comments of the Prime Minister yesterday welcoming the result of the Nationwide ballot.

Mr. John Heppell: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on legal aid? When a Danish bank sues Scandinavian ex-employees about property deals in Spain and Gibraltar and the British taxpayer ends up paying a £10 million bill for it, there is obviously something very wrong with the system.

Mrs. Taylor: Legal aid generally, and particularly legal aid for foreign nationals, is another issue on which there may be agreement across the Chamber. The House knows that the Lord Chancellor has appointed Sir Peter Middleton to review civil justice, including legal aid. We must await the outcome of that inquiry.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: May we have a full debate before the recess on the massive increase in Britain's contributions to the European Community budget? Gross contributions have risen 32 per cent., to about £8.6 billion. There was some sort of debate on the matter in European Standing Committee B yesterday, but no substantive answers were forthcoming from the Economic Secretary. She was unable to tell us what effect the changes would have on the PSBR or why there appears to have been a 78 per cent. reduction in the money allocated in the budget for fraud.
The documents were in an appallingly shoddy state, and the hon. Lady had to begin her comments by correcting many of them. Many Labour Members share our concern about increases in the Community budget, especially in respect of the common agricultural policy. The Community budget is one of the great scandals of our time. Can the House give it urgent consideration before the recess?

Mrs. Taylor: I understand that there was a full and lively debate in European Standing Committee B yesterday. I have full confidence that my hon. Friend the


Economic Secretary dealt with the matter extremely well. There was also a debate on a similar matter on the Floor of the House, but it was very poorly attended.

Ms Beverley Hughes: In view of my right hon. Friend's role in co-ordinating the Government's initiative on drugs—about which I know she shares the concern of many hon. Members—when will she be able to make a statement on the matter generally, and in particular on the appointment of the so-called drugs tsar to take things forward?

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is right to say that I and many other hon. Members are concerned about developments on this matter. I am afraid that I cannot promise a statement, but we expect to advertise for a person to fill the role by the end of this month.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have raised the issue of long recesses on a number of occasions? It would be wrong of me not to repeat that today because 88 days cannot be justified in this Chamber or, more importantly, outside it. I know that the legislation is not ready, but she has heard requests for at least 14 different debates—Adjournment debates, not Bills—on issues ranging from coal to Indonesia.
It would not be impossible to come back a week earlier and arrange debates of an Adjournment character so that all those matters could be dealt with. Back Benchers in particular would be able to raise issues. While that may not be possible this time, I suggest that she tries to do it next time. If legislation is not available, use Parliament for raising other issues.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend said that he has raised this issue before. I have heard him do so before other recesses; he is certainly consistent on the point. He knows that I am on record as having said that we could make better use of parliamentary time by better spacing of

parliamentary sittings through the year. I want to consider that. He is right to say that legislation is not ready because this is a new Parliament. That is a significant factor. I have some sympathy with his overall objective. The Modernisation Committee may have views on the issue when it comes to consider it.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: In connection with her response to an earlier question, how does the Leader of the House imagine that it would have been possible for the House to debate the European Community budget before the beginning of this week, given that the draft budget was not available to hon. Members before Monday?

Mrs. Taylor: There was a debate in European Standing Committee B, which was attended by hon. Members. That is normal procedure. There was a debate in the House on a related issue, and very few hon. Members attended it.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Leader of the House address one of the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)? The right hon. Lady omitted any reference to the guillotine. Can she give us a firm undertaking that next week's guillotine will be the last that we will have until the House has had an opportunity to debate the Modernisation Committee's proposals, and the Government have had a chance adequately to respond to them?

Mr. Skinner: No guillotines in the recess.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend suggests that I say, no guillotines in the recess. I can give that assurance. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. He is informing the House that there are proposals in the Committee's report that we feel may help to reduce the need for guillotines. I hope that he is right, and that we can make progress by implementing the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee, which I hope will reduce the need for guillotines.

Points of Order

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a document, a copy of which I have sent to you in advance? It is a letter written by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), who, I understand from the document, is the co-ordinator of the campaign activity among Labour Members in the build-up to the Uxbridge by-election for the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you give him notice?"] I have given him notice that I intended to raise this point of order.
The document encourages members of the Labour party to telephone a House of Commons number telephone to make arrangements for their visits to the Uxbridge by-election campaign and informs them that the Scottish Labour party has undertaken to telephone a large number of Uxbridge voters between now and the by-election.
Is it in order for House of Commons paper to be used in a circular letter whose sole purpose is campaigning in a parliamentary by-election? Is it in order for House of Commons telephones, which are paid for by the taxpayer, to be used as part of a Labour party by-election campaign? Does not the drafting in of the Scottish Labour party to undertake telephone canvassing show the desperation of the Labour party about its chances of winning the by-election?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The House is obviously extremely careful about such matters. I would advise the hon. Lady to pass the document to which she has referred to the Serjeant at Arms for his examination.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, European Standing Committee B debated the apparent 32 per cent. increase in the size of the United Kingdom's contributions to the European Union budget for next year, which will take them to £8.3 billion. I say the "apparent" 32 per cent. increase, because that was the figure cited in the original papers submitted to the Committee; but a late paper submitted on the day of the debate suggested that the real figure might be less, although the Economic Secretary failed to give any alternative figure and failed to specify the real position. That late paper was never received by some hon. Members who attended the Committee.
In view of the lack of timely documentation about this matter and the fact that there is still confusion about the real increase in the size of our contributions to the European budget next year, I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the scrutiny requirements under Standing Order No. 119 have not been discharged. The House should not now proceed to vote on the motion before it, which would give authority to the Government to cave in to that massive increase by discharging that scrutiny requirement.

Mr. William Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thoroughly endorse what the shadow Chief Secretary has said. As a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation and one who participated in the so-called debate yesterday in European Standing Committee B, I have never seen such outrageous behaviour. The Government treated the Committee with contempt.
The documents, which were produced incredibly late, were unsatisfactory and in a mess. They completely contradicted the recommendations by the Select Committee last year that documents should be provided to all Committees in good time. Yesterday's events were an outrage and a disgraceful slur on the activities of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for what goes on in Standing Committees. As for the budget increase, the House will have to decide on the motion when it comes before it.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Chair is the protector of Back-Bench and minority rights, so I seek some guidance from you. In 1983, the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties were advised that there were four places on the Select Committees for Members representing Northern Ireland. This time, after names have been submitted, just one Member from Northern Ireland will sit on the departmental Select Committees.
I have written to different people about the matter, and have received no clarification. Given the new arrangement between the Liberal Democrats and the Government, perhaps we might now be the custodians of minority rights in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said, but that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), is it acceptable to this House of Commons that matters that could involve the spending an additional not £2 million or £200 million, but £2 billion, which would be allocated to the European Union, should deal with in a Committee upstairs rather than on the Floor of the House? Is it acceptable that the documents presented on that occasion were inadequate and that one did not appear until the day of the Standing Committee?
Is this not a matter that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should deal with as a custodian of the rights of Back Benchers in the House? I view it as a very serious matter that the taxpayers of this country may have to ante up an additional 32.5 per cent. as our contribution to the European Union—in sterling, equivalent to possibly £2 billion. It is wrong that we had to decide that with inadequate documents, which were provided late to the Committee. Should not this matter be properly and fully debated on the Floor of the House, so that all hon. Members could participate?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to ask Madam Speaker to issue a note for guidance on the provision of documents indicating when they should properly be available so that Members on both sides of the House have a proper and adequate opportunity to know what they will be discussing?

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to recall an incident last year in the same Committee Room when we were discussing almost precisely the same


issue? Mr. Phillip Oppenheim was the then Treasury Minister, and many of the hon. Members who have made points of order today were present then, and made exactly the same case as they have done today. The Government's response was to ignore them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker is always most concerned to ensure that the correct documents are before the House and I have no doubt will note what has been said. I repeat what I said earlier: the Chair—[Interruption.] Order. The Chair has no responsibility for what goes on in Standing Committees. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to vote on the matter when it comes before them.

Mrs. Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the provision of information to hon. Members by Ministers? Last week, I tabled a written question to the President of the Board of Trade for answer on a named day asking when she intended to publish her Green Paper on the late payment of debt. On Monday, I received a holding response to say that the right hon. Lady would respond to my question as soon as possible.
On Tuesday morning, I read the answer to my question in The Times. Following publication of that answer in the newspaper, a response was sent to me by the right hon. Lady which confirmed the information that had been made available to that newspaper. Is it right that questions that are legitimately raised by hon. Members under the Standing Orders of the House should go unanswered while those answers are given to journalists?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for the content of answers to questions of that kind, but hon. Members certainly should be made aware of them before the press. The hon. Lady's point is well made, and will be noted.

Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment which met for the first time at 4.30 pm yesterday afternoon. At that meeting we discussed a number of matters, the details of which I will not go into now, but they included whether we should divide the Committee into two Sub-Committees and who should chair them.
I was somewhat concerned to find that a copy of the Evening Standard, which I have passed to you, and which was purchased at 2.30 pm, two full hours before the Committee met, quoted one member of the Select Ctte, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), to whom I have given notice, as the Chairman of one of the Sub-Committees. That is a point of concern, because not only did that report presuppose the election of that member as one of those Chairmen: it also presupposed that the Committee would decide to form those two Sub-Committees.
Neither of those decisions had been taken by the Committee, because it had not even met. I regard it as a matter of the gravest concern that that information should have appeared in the press. Could you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, investigate that matter on behalf of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for speculation that may appear in the press in advance of such events.

BILL PRESENTED

MOBILE TELEPHONES (PROHIBITION OF USE IN DESIGNATED PLACES)

Mr. Michael Fabricant presented a Bill to prohibit the sending or receiving of mobile telephone calls in restaurants, railway carriages, buses, cinemas, theatres and other designated places: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 February 1998, and to be printed [Bill 57].

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

1998 PRELIMINARY DRAFT BUDGET

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. COM (97) 280, the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1998; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 111.

Division No. 65]
[5.49 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Church, Ms Judith


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clapham, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)



Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Austin, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Barnes, Harry
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Ann


Battle, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Colman, Tony (Putney)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bennett, Andrew F
Cooper, Yvette


Benton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Berry, Roger
Corbyn, Jeremy


Betts, Clive
Corston, Ms Jean


Blackman, Liz
Cousins, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cox, Tom


Blizzard, Bob
Cranston, Ross


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Boateng, Paul
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Borrow, David
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davidson, Ian


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Buck, Ms Karen
Dawson, Hilton


Burgon, Colin
Dean, Mrs Janet


Byers, Stephen
Denham, John


Caborn, Richard
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Drew, David


Cann, Jamie
Drown, Ms Julia


Casale, Roger
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Caton, Martin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cawsey, Ian
Ellman, Ms Louise


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Ennis, Jeff


Chaytor, David
Etherington, Bill


Chisholm, Malcolm
Ewing, Mrs Margaret






Feam, Ronnie
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Laxton, Bob


Fitzsimons, Loma
Leslie, Christopher


Flint, Caroline
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Linton, Martin


Foster, Don (Bath)
Livingstone, Ken


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
Lock, David


Foulkes, George
Love, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
McAllion, John


Galbraith, Sam
McAvoy, Thomas


Gapes, Mike
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gardiner, Barry
Macdonald, Calum


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonnell, John


Gerrard, Neil
McFall, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McIsaac, Shona


Godman, Dr Norman A
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Goggins, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNulty, Tony


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grant, Bernie
McWalter, Tony


Grogan, John
McWilliam, John


Gunnell, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mallaber, Judy


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marek, Dr John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hanson, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Healey, John
Martlew, Eric


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Meale, Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Heppell, John
Michael, Alun


Hesford, Stephen
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hill, Keith
Milburn, Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Miller, Andrew


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mitchell, Austin


Hoey, Kate
Moffatt, Laura


Home Robertson, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hoon, Geoffrey
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hope, Phil
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Howells, Dr Kim
Morley, Elliot


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mountford, Kali


Hutton, John
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mudie, George


Illsley, Eric
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jamieson, David
Norris, Dan


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Olner, Bill



Osborne, Mrs Sandra


Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pollard, Kerry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pope, Greg


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kidney, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quin, Ms Joyce


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rammell, Bill





Rapson, Syd
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Raynsford, Nick
Swinney, John


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)



Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rogers, Allan
Timms, Stephen


Rooker, Jeff
Tipping, Paddy


Rooney, Terry
Todd, Mark


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Touhig, Don


Rowlands, Ted
Trickett, Jon


Roy, Frank
Truswell, Paul


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Vaz, Keith


Salter, Martin
Vis, Dr Rudi


Savidge, Malcolm
Wallace, James


Sawford, Phil
Walley, Ms Joan


Sedgemore, Brian
Ward, Ms Claire


Shaw, Jonathan
Watts, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
White, Brian


Shipley, Ms Debra
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Singh, Marsha
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Willis, Phil


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wills, Michael


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Soley, Clive
Wise, Audrey


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wood, Mike


Spellar, John
Woolas, Phil


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wray, James


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stevenson, George
Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wyatt, Derek


Stinchcombe, Paul



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Amess, David
Fox, Dr Liam


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Fraser, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Gibb, Nick


Baldry, Tony
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Bercow, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brady, Graham
Gray, James


Brazier, Julian
Green, Damian


Browning, Mrs Angela
Greenway, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grieve, Dominic


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Butterfill, John
Hague, Rt Hon William


Cash, William
Hammond, Philip


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hawkins, Nick



Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
Horam, John


Collins, Tim
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, Rt Hon David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Day, Stephen
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Lansley, Andrew


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Letwin, Oliver


Duncan, Alan
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lidington, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fabricant, Michael
Loughton, Tim


Flight, Howard
Luff, Peter






Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir Michael


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Syms, Robert


Madel, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maples, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Townend, John


May, Mrs Theresa
Trend, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Tyrie, Andrew


Nicholls, Patrick
Walter, Robert


Norman, Archie
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Paterson, Owen
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Prior, David
Willetts, David


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Woodward, Shaun


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Yeo, Tim


Ruffley, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian



Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Mr. John Whittingdale.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Education (Schools) Bill

Lords amendment considered.

Clause 2

TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXISTING ASSISTED PUPILS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) in the case of a pupil with an assisted place at a school providing education for children up to the age of 13 but not beyond, at the end of the school year in which he attains the age of 13; or")

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.

Mr. Blunkett: In order to detain the House for as short a time as possible, I shall not go over all the old ground and refer in detail to familiar issues. We oppose the assisted places scheme; some Opposition Members support it.
In phasing the scheme out, we are doing our best to protect children's interests. We have declined to overturn its extension, which we could have done in time for next September. We have made it clear that we will protect the interests of children who have already been guaranteed places and that, in allowing the scheme's extension to children in primary education, we are protecting their right to remain in it until the age of 11. Today's debate deals not with substance and principle, but with the issue that arises from the Lords amendment, which refers indirectly to the Kilfoyle letter.

Mr. Don Foster: My party is as convinced as the Labour party of the need to abolish the assisted places scheme as quickly as possible, but we also believe that when a promise has been made it is important that it is kept.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he supports what Lady Blackstone said in the debate on the Bill in another place? She said:
The presumption will be that any parent who has accepted an assisted place running through to age 13 in a free-standing preparatory school on the basis of the Kilfoyle letter will have that place honoured. I can confirm that in such circumstances the commitment will be honoured through the use of the discretionary power."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 1997; Vol. 581, c. 1093.]
In what circumstances would the Secretary of State not agree that the commitment given in the Kilfoyle letter is being met by the Government?

Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to support what was said by my noble Friend. On the understanding that the promise was given as a consequence of the Kilfoyle letter, it will be fulfilled under the discretion that we have agreed.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The Secretary of State is dealing with the nub of the issue. What if a child


at an independent preparatory school has an assisted place that was given according to the rules of the assisted places scheme but not on the basis of the Kilfoyle letter? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot describe circumstances that distinguish the general case from the case that has not relied on the Kilfoyle pledge, I do not understand why he has to preserve the discretion. Why can he not simply write the principle into the Bill?

Mr. Blunkett: I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands perfectly well why we need the discretion. There are people who, although their child had entered a school that keeps pupils up to the age of 13—and had done so at an early age—had not been assured that their child would continue until the age of 13. Such people were not in the position that we are discussing.
There have been some peculiar quirks to the assisted places scheme, and we, as a new Government, do not propose to repeat them. There have been quirks in the interpretation of the scheme—not least the fact that, when the original secondary education scheme was passed in the early 1980s, hon. Members were not necessarily aware that it would be applied to primary education by primary and prep schools. People who were obtaining places were highlighted in the press because, as the former hon. Member for Buckingham said, there was a presumption that they may not strictly have been entitled to them. We are not examining what has happened in the past, so as to protect the interests of the young people concerned. We are mindful of the fact that we must not drop ourselves into the hole of not having discretion and being unable to examine claims properly.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: It is obvious that the Secretary of State intends to press ahead and put the legislation on the statute book. The amendment is important. How will he exercise the discretion? How much will it cost to examine the cases of each of the 2,000 children who are covered by the amendment? What extra amount will his Department put to one side to scrutinise each of those applications? No parent of any child who falls into this category will be satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's blanket assurances. If he intends to keep his pledge of putting children before dogma, he must say how much is being put aside to examine these cases.

Mr. Blunkett: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Interventions should be short: they should not be mini-speeches. I appeal to hon. Members for co-operation.

Mr. Blunkett: As an ex-Minister, the hon. Lady should be aware that the section, including staff at Darlington, have a duty to examine the applications and the allocation of places and to hold on file the information that is required, including details about the nature of the places that have been given up. As we are not expanding the scheme, and as that information is available, it can be made available at no expense. It is a question of using departmental time, and I am, and intend to remain, a great believer in ensuring that we use that time effectively and efficiently.
I am not sure that the people involved in the 2,000 cases to which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) referred will apply for their children to go through to the age of 13. Some of them will think that it is more sensible to transfer their children to secondary education at the age of 11 than to seek private sponsorship, which many appear to be doing, or to transfer them to state secondary education at an age that is inappropriate for the area in which they live. These matters have already been debated at length, and I do not intend to delay the House by going through them again for the sake of hearing my own voice.
It is critical to understand that I am honouring our commitment to use the discretion sensitively and generously and to ensure that the young people and their families are not let down. I give that assurance again, and I have given it in the words of my noble Friend. I repeat the assurance that I gave on Second Reading about the 12 schools where children will take up places in September at the age of 10 and stay until the age of 18. We shall honour that assurance.
Much of the debate arises from the fact that, at the general election, we chose not to overturn the Conservative Government's decision on opening up primary education to assisted places. We did that because we thought that it was in the children's best interests not to have their education disrupted, and so that they would not have to enter the state system at such a late date that there would be no preference for them or their families. Contrary to what has been said in earlier debates on the matter, we have been extremely sensitive to the needs of children and have not put dogma first.
The amendment would not have been carried in the other place if only life peers had been voting. It would have been defeated by 79 votes to 55 if hereditary peers did not exist. It was simply a case of what I have described before as privilege defending privilege. Someone described it as democracy. This House is the democratically elected forum and has a mandate from the electorate. We had an overwhelming mandate on the Bill at the general election and no one could have been in any doubt about where we stood. We are not, therefore, debating the principle of the measure but whether discretion should be used in the way that we describe.
I say to the House and to the other place that great care must be taken over an amendment that is designed to undermine the Bill. We are sensitive to the importance of using the discretion wisely and of continuing to give guarantees. We are making sure that we protect children's interests and are going out of our way to prevent disruption.
6.15 pm
I wish that Conservative Members would understand that, as in the past, discretion will be used wisely and publicly. I fully understand that light will be shed on individual children and the importance of what was promised and what will be fulfilled. We do not want to open any more cans of worms that can be used to undermine the aim of switching resources from the benefit of a few to the benefit of the many. Some 400,000 youngsters of five, six and seven in state schools will


benefit from smaller classes. That is a clear message from the House, and it was sent at the election on 1 May. I hope that the House will reaffirm it in rejecting the amendment.

Mr. Dorrell: I hope that the House will reject the Secretary of State's motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. In moving it, the right hon. Gentleman was softly spoken—butter would not melt in his mouth. He is determined to try to present his case in the gentlest possible way. The question before the House is simple: whether the Government should write into the Bill the commitment that was given on behalf of Labour by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, in his letter to the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools on 1 April.
I disagree with the Bill's principle, which is the abolition of the assisted places scheme. The Government's policy is divisive, and closes opportunity to many children. The Bill removes choice from parents and, in short, is regressive and reactionary. However, as the Secretary of State rightly said, that is not the question before the House. The question is very precise: whether the pledge given by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), now the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, should be put into the legislation to abolish the assisted places scheme. Let us be clear about the circumstances and history of the argument.
During the election campaign, the chairman of the IAPS sought clarification from the Labour party about how its policy to abolish the assisted places scheme would apply to his members—traditional preparatory schools offering education between the ages, typically, of eight and 13. There was some correspondence. The first response from Labour was not clear. The IAPS wrote again and received a crystal clear letter from the hon. Member for Walton, dated 1 April. It was not, in the language of the last Parliament, a statement made on a wet night in Dudley. It was a clear statement by a Labour party spokesman, no ifs or buts. I shall read it again to the House:
If a child has a place at a school which runs to age 13, then that place will be honoured through to 13.
The question is whether that pledge, as given by the hon. Member for Walton, should be written into the Bill. It is a question not of the merits of the Bill, but of whether a Minister's word is his bond or simply the first convenient thing that comes into his head. It is a question that has dogged the Bill throughout its passage through Parliament.
It all began during the Second Reading debate on 2 June, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) asked the Secretary of State what his response was to the Kilfoyle letter and why the pledge was not in the Bill. It is instructive to go through the various occasions when the issue has arisen during the passage of the Bill. The House should note that, each time the issue has arisen, the Government's response has been different. No wonder the Secretary of State was so modest in his presenting his case this evening. He was anxious not to present a new argument. That at least is a departure in the way Parliament has dealt with the issue because, at every stage, the Government have offered a new excuse.
On 2 June, the Secretary of State offered his first excuse:
I am very clear, and so is the Bill, that assisted places will remain in primary education up to the normal age of transfer at 11. Where an alternative transfer age applies in that area, the Secretary of State

will have discretion, and my ministerial team and I will use it wisely to ensure that we do not have a situation where 500,000 youngsters transfer at 11, but other people think that they can transfer at 13, even if 13 is not the normal transferable age in that locality."—[Official Report, 2 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 27.]
There we have the first doctrine that defended the Bill as drafted—that we should not allow transfer at age 13 where the normal principle of the local education authority within which the prep school operates is to transfer schoolchildren between primary and secondary stage at age 11.
I have two answers to that response. First, and most important, the Secretary of State's response on 2 June—which was not, I have to say, repeated in his speech this evening—breaks the pledge given by the hon. Member for Walton, who said that, where a child had a place at a school up to age 13, the place would be honoured up to 13. The Secretary of State's first response was that that would not apply if, in the locality surrounding the prep school, the normal habit was to transfer at 11. It was a breaking of the pledge.
Secondly, it is, of course, a matter for parents to decide whether it is in their children's interests, given local circumstance, to transfer, in the normal traditions of the locality, into the state system at 11, or to continue to 13, as the Kilfoyle pledge made it clear they would be entitled to do.
Just how clearly the Kilfoyle pledge was broken, if we accept the principle of the Secretary of State's response on Second Reading, was made clear in the letter that the Department for Education and Employment sent to prep school head teachers about how the Government, at that stage of the argument, intended to use their discretion. I go through this argument because, from the beginning, the Government have said, "Rely on our discretion," but at several stages in the argument they have offered different interpretations of how they intend to use it.
The Department's letter states:
There is provision for the Secretary of State to exercise limited discretion to extend support under the scheme in exceptional circumstances.
That is not what the Kilfoyle letter told the IAPS on 1 April. That contained no ifs or buts. It stated:
If a child has a place at a school … that place will be honoured".
In its letter to prep schools, the Department started talking about "exceptional circumstances".
It is small wonder, therefore, that my hon. Friends returned to the issue in Committee on 10 June. When the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), replied to that debate, she had a different line of argument. She said:
the commitments that we gave in our manifesto will be honoured. I shall remind the Committee of those commitments. First, children in a secondary school will be able to finish secondary school and, secondly, children in a primary school will be able to finish primary school."—[Official Report, 10 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 980.]
Both those commitments were given, and it is welcome that the Government intend to honour them, but the Under-Secretary forgot the third commitment, which was given by the hon. Member for Walton—

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): That was not in the manifesto.

Mr. Dorrell: That is a new defence. We have not had that one before. So far, on the authority of the


Prime Minister, this has been held to be binding. Now the Minister says that it is not in the manifesto. Would he like to develop that line of argument? I do not think that the Secretary of State will thank him if he does; he is in enough trouble as it is.

Mr. Blunkett: I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention merely to the fact that he was quoting the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), in terms of her interpretation of the manifesto.

Mr. Dorrell: So we are back to the wet night in Dudley doctrine—that it does not matter because it was not in the manifesto. In her response to a debate in which the pledge was being quoted, the Under-Secretary talked about two commitments in the manifesto Those two commitments the Government are certainly honouring, but she forgot the commitment in the letter.
Before he gets too excited about it, the Secretary of State should remember that, the following day, the Prime Minister acknowledged at the Dispatch Box that the Under-Secretary was wrong. When challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on the issue, he said:
Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise this, and I hope that my answer will give him some satisfaction.
The Prime Minister recognised that the Under-Secretary and the education team had got it wrong. He went on to say:
the Secretary of State will make it clear today"—
he had not made it clear until then—
that he will exercise his discretion in respect of those children".
Then the Prime Minister introduced some new doctrines into the argument. They had not been mentioned before. He said that the Secretary of State was about to issue a new statement of policy that said that the Government would exercise this discretion
provided that they"—
parents—
have been given a promise or an understanding that their assisted place will go all the way through to 13.
That was the doctrine the Secretary of State repeated from the Dispatch Box this evening: that the commitment in the Kilfoyle letter is not an unrestrained commitment, but a commitment to honour places where a specific commitment can be shown to have been given to a specific parent that the place will be open to age 13.
According to the Prime Minister's doctrine, the parent is not entitled to rely on the general pledge of Labour party policy given to the IAPS by the hon. Member for Walton on 1 April; any parent taking up a place in a prep school on the assisted places scheme was told on 11 June—several weeks after the commitment—that, if they wanted to rely on that commitment they had to get a specific and personal promise out of the prep school offering the assisted place. The Prime Minister had changed the terms of the argument.
Under further questioning from my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley, the Prime Minister introduced a new principle into the defence of the Government's position. My right hon. Friend pressed the Prime Minister

to say why we could not have this principle in the Bill in the unrestrained terms of the Kilfoyle letter and why it had to be based on discretion. The Prime Minister said:
It is important that there is a discretionary element, because we must avoid abuse of the system."—[Official Report, 11 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1135–36.]
That is the Achilles' heel of the Government's argument. Despite repeated attempts to extract from Government spokesmen, both in the House and in another place, an example of the abuse against which the Government are protecting themselves, no example has been forthcoming. The only Minister who offered any explanation about the abuse that the Government had in mind is Baroness Blackstone, about whom I shall have more to say in a moment.
It was only in another place that the full implications of the two new doctrines introduced by the Prime Minister became clear. My noble Friends supported an amendment moved by a Liberal Democrat peer, which is why I hope the Liberal Democrats may feel that this commitment should be written into the Bill.
My noble Friends pressed Baroness Blackstone to elaborate on the Government's policy. Part of the speech in which she set out the three circumstances in which the Government intend to use their discretion has already been quoted. Two of those circumstances are welcome. The first is where the local age of transfer is not 11 but 12 or 13, and I agree that that would be sensible. Secondly, there is the Dulwich example, where there is a secondary school that recruits at age 10. That seems sensible, too.
Then we come to the third example—I shall quote Baroness Blackstone's words directly. We come back to the doctrine of the specific promise. She said that some schools
with an age range of seven, eight and nine up to 13—may have been given a clear promise that they can keep their place up to the age of 13 in the belief that the new Government gave such an undertaking. We shall honour that commitment.
What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that, on recruiting a pupil into a prep school, a head teacher has to produce a specific commitment that the child will be welcome at the school to the age of 13? Is not any parent entitled to assume that, provided the child behaves properly and so on, that is an implied undertaking between a school and a family? Why cannot that parent rely on the implied undertaking that, on putting a pupil into a school, the place will be open until the completion of the normal cycle of education in that school? Why cannot that parent rely on the general principle of the letter sent by the hon. Member for Walton?
6.30 pm
The importance of the questions that I am asking is underlined further when we look at what Baroness Blackstone had to say about the Government's belief that they need to protect themselves from abuse. She is the only Government spokesman who has tried to answer the question about what sort of abuse is being referred to. My hon. Friends and, I hope, the entire House will listen with some care to the few words that she offered in answer to that question. This is the Government's defence of why we cannot have this principle written into the Bill. She said:
I was referring to schools which are simply using this as a bridge into independent secondary schools—in other words, providing another two years of private schooling at the taxpayers' expense for those who will then go on to pay for their child's independent ordinary schooling."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 1997; Vol. 581, c. 790-1.]
Let us be clear: the abuse against which the Government are protecting themselves is the action of parents who rely on the Kilfoyle letter and who, through the assisted places scheme, are intending to use a place at a preparatory school as preparation for access to an independent school at 13. That is the case with the great majority of children going into prep schools. It is precisely what the majority of parents who put their children into an independent prep school will intend for their children. The action of those parents is being described by Baroness Blackstone at the other end of the Corridor as the abuse against which the Government are protecting themselves. That is why Conservative Members do not accept the soft words of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Don Foster: The right hon. Gentleman said, rightly, that the House should listen carefully to what was said by Baroness Blackstone. It is also important that the House reads all her comments on this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman reads further, he will see that she talks about the fact that the majority of schools will act honourably. She said:
I am sure that the vast majority of schools will act honourably and seek to do the right thing by the pupils in their charge. But I am afraid that we cannot rule out the possibility that a school—perhaps giving prominence to its own interests—may not ensure that parents consider all the available options."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 1997; Vol. 581, c. 1094.]
Surely the point is that many parents will want to consider what is the right thing to do for their children at the age of 11, and it is important that they should be given all the available information. That is the point that she was making.

Mr. Dorrell: I agree that parents must be responsible for their own decisions and make their own choice about whether they want their child to switch to the state system at 11 to go on in the independent system to the age of 13 or to switch into the state system at 13. Those are the decisions that it is proper for parents to make.
I do not accept any criticism about not reading the entire speech: I was reading the end of Baroness Blackstone's speech. I read the final paragraph of her speech to the last full stop and I read it verbatim. My point is that the Government's definition of abuse is the mainstream intention of any parent with a child on the assisted places scheme picking up on the commitment given by the hon. Member for Walton.
The numbers attached to this argument are tiny. What is proposed makes no material difference to the Government's plans for the assisted places scheme, regrettable though I believe them to be, but it makes a huge difference to individual children and it makes an even bigger difference to the Government's reputation for straight dealing. As the Bill went through the House and another place, we were told, first, that everything would be all right because it would be against the children's interests to move them at 13. Then we were told that we could rely on the discretion because it would deliver the result that the hon. Member for Walton promised. Then,

when Baroness Blackstone was pressed on what she meant by abuse, she made it clear that she was referring to the great majority of parents who are relying on the Kilfoyle letter. They are being defined by the Government as abusers of the system.
The Secretary of State can use his majority if he chooses to overrule the Lords amendment. I hope that he will use this as an opportunity to show that he is bound by the specific terms of the commitment given on behalf of the Labour party which would not be honoured if the speech made by Baroness Blackstone was the guiding principle on which he was intending to use his discretion. This is his opportunity to recognise that this is an argument that has dogged the Bill from the beginning. It is an argument where right is on our side and he now has an opportunity to acknowledge that.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State's contribution today has been most unedifying. I listened carefully, and I heard the assurances that he gave the House about the way in which those children will be treated. He said that there was nothing disreputable in his behaviour and nothing underhand in the way in which the Government will deal with this. However, the last thing that he was prepared to do was to put his words in writing in the Bill. It is that which gives the House cause for concern. It certainly gave cause for concern in another place.
If the Secretary of State is suggesting that we do not have cause for concern, that we have been given a bankable assurance and that the reservations expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) are groundless, he has no reason to resist this modest but clear amendment. If the Government agree to the amendment, the people of this country—the 2,000 or so children who will potentially be affected—will have clear notice from the Government that they acknowledge the concerns. They would be giving an assurance to those children and their parents that they will behave honourably.
The argument that the amendment undermines the whole purpose of the Bill is pathetic. It is a narrow amendment which deals with a specific point, not with the underlying principles of the Bill—which most Conservative Members find deeply offensive. It deals with a small number of children and parents who deserve better treatment than they have had so far from the Labour Government.
My other point relates to the rather old-fashioned, class-warrior remarks of the Secretary of State about the decision of the other place to try to revise the Bill. His attack on hereditary peerages was rather pathetic. Their Lordships basically said that they were dissatisfied with the assurances that they had received and that there was therefore a need to revise the Bill. They were acting as the defenders not of privilege, but of those children from poor households who had been given the opportunity, by the Conservative Government, of education at independent schools regarded throughout the world as of the finest.
I hope that the message will go out to the people of this country that the right hon. Gentleman and his party are not content simply to have the most massive majority in


this House for decades, but are so arrogant and so new Labour that they brook no opposition, from wherever it might come.

Mr. Blunkett: Especially from a Tory hereditary peer.

Mr. Howarth: That is a cheap remark. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there should be no revision; no opportunity for the decisions of this House to be revised? The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) is nodding. If this House is to be the sole authority, why have another Chamber? Why not abolish it? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Yes."] There we have it—old Labour noises from new Labour faces. They are not interested in any opposition; they wish arrogantly to promote their cause, however unjust or misguided.
I hope that the Government will think again on the amendment. If they are anxious to show parents that they are serious in upholding the undertakings given in the Kilfoyle letter, they should accept the amendment gracefully. They should do so not because their Lordships defeated the Government, but because they recognise that they would be doing their duty in upholding an undertaking by a Labour spokesman and fulfilling their duty to the parents. I hope that they will think again about their unwise and arrogant remarks about the way that Parliament handles its business. They should understand the need for a revising Chamber.

Mrs. Gillan: The House knows of my deep hatred of the Bill, which I have vigorously opposed at every stage. I am delighted with the way in which the new Conservative Front-Bench team have taken up the reins in opposing a vicious Bill that is based on class envy.
I congratulate the Government on doing one thing of which I thoroughly approve—protecting the music and ballet assisted places scheme, which is aimed at children who are talented in music or dance. Of course, the cost per pupil of that scheme is £13,000, so this amendment would cost very little to include in the Bill.
During the passage of the Bill, and not least on this amendment, we have tried to persuade, cajole and urge the Government to use common sense, despite their determination to abolish the scheme. We asked them to wait and see, because if their pledges on standards—which we all applaud—were fulfilled, the scheme would wither on the vine.
Had the Government been prepared to wait a little, that would have given schools time to absorb the change and perhaps find alternatives ways of funding pupils from less well-off families. However, the Government would not accept that and now they will not accept this reasoned amendment, which was passed by 127 Members of the other place. I congratulate those life and hereditary peers who thought it important to send their views to this place.
The amendment is a matter of honour. Both this and the other place are honourable Houses. I call on the Government to look on the amendment as a matter of honour. Indeed, one noble Lord—who agrees with the Government on the principle of the Bill—said that the Kilfoyle letter should be honoured. He said that the Government should start with a presumption of innocence

in favour of those pupils and parents who are in the position referred to in the Kilfoyle letter. If we cannot appeal to the Government on logic, can we at least appeal to them on the ground of honour?

Mr. Blunkett: Cant.

Mrs. Gillan: The Independent Schools Information Service has estimated that about 2,000 children will fall into that category, as I said in my intervention the Secretary of State's speech. We have heard how the discretion will be applied, but we have also heard that the right hon. Gentleman considers that no expense will be involved in examining the cases of those children. It is rather sad that he considers that the departmental time of officials is not an expense. I would have thought that he would acknowledge that the officials who will no longer be required to administer the team will end their work more quickly if the amendment were accepted. If he rejects the amendment, the officials will have more of their time taken up examining the so-called discretionary arrangement, so it will be an additional cost on the taxpayer.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), I was alarmed by the attack on the House of Lords and the use of that appalling soundbite, "Privilege defending privilege." The Secretary of State should accept that it is a case of privilege defending the underprivileged—something on which his party should be concentrating, as the Conservative Government always did.
The very fact that the right hon. Gentleman refers to privilege means that it is the privilege of the independent schools that bothers him. That betrays his antipathy towards independent schools, which was revealed so clearly on 2 June when, from a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted a colleague to preside over the demise of the independent sector.

Mr. Blunkett: Who said that?

Mrs. Gillan: The Secretary of State said it in a sedentary intervention recorded in Hansard.
We have tried every means to amend the Bill. We make a final appeal that the Government accept this well-thought-through amendment from the other place—for the sake of the children and as a matter of honour.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I want to add a few remarks to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Secretary of State brought discredit on himself by attacking the Lords for seeking to amend the Bill in a way that was designed to give effect to the promises made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) before the election.
I took part in the Second Reading and Committee debates on the Bill. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). In those debates, Ministers defended the provision by referring to a limited discretion in terms very similar to those used in a letter to schools issued by the Department. The letter talked about a limited discretion in exceptional circumstances, which were described solely in relation to
easing integration into the maintained sector in those areas where the normal age of transfer is later than age 11.


The evidence asked of schools wishing to apply on behalf of parents for such discretion makes no reference to the Kilfoyle letter.
When we debated the matter before, Ministers did not talk about discretion in the terms that were later used in the upper House. It is clear from what Baroness Blackstone said about discretion that the Government are seeking to cover up their clear failure to meet the pledges that they made before the election. They are trying to say that they can meet those pledges by the exercise of discretion, but it is clear that they will not. Baroness Blackstone said:
If it can be demonstrated that the offers were made on the strength of the Kilfoyle letter, then, yes, we shall exercise discretion"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 1997; Vol. 581, c. 1093.]
The pledge made by the hon. Member for Walton was unequivocal. He said:
If a child has a place at a school which runs to age 13, then that place will be honoured through to 13.
He did not say that the place had to be offered on the understanding of the commitment in that letter. He gave a clear expression of an intention that such places would be honoured. Ministers are trying to run away from that pledge. If they intended to honour such assisted places through to 13, they would put that in the Bill. The evidence suggests that they will not honour places in the terms of the letter issued before the election. They seek to break that promise.
We do not know the circumstances under which they will break that pledge. When Baroness Blackstone talks about the potential for abuse, we are in murky territory. There is no evidence of such abuses. No evidence is offered that schools have been seeking to encourage parents to maintain places against the interests of their children. Quite the opposite is the case.
I do not know about the cases of 2,000 children countrywide, but I know about the cases of five children in St. Faith's school in my constituency. The parents are continually asking the school under what circumstances their children, aged under 11, will be able to stay at the school until they are 13, as they hope. The school cannot answer. The parents are concerned that the place that they had believed would be maintained until the age of 13 will not be honoured. The school is not trying to disguise anything or distort their decision. It is trying to enable them to maintain the places that they had believed that their children would be able to enjoy up to 13.
We are seeking to uphold a decision that brings credit to the upper House and to give effect to what should have been the Government's intention. Parents had understood that to be their policy, and it ought to be put in the Bill.

Mrs. Theresa May: It is regrettable that we have to debate the amendment and that the Government have not seen fit simply to accept it. It will not undermine the purpose or principle of the Bill, which have been debated long and hard in the Chamber. I contributed to those debates several times, and my views are well documented.
We are debating whether the Government are willing to abide by commitments that were freely given before the election—commitments on which people have been able to base decisions about the schooling of their

children. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) put the issue clearly in an intervention, when he referred to supporting the Government in keeping a promise.
The Government have not said that the commitment was not given. We are not debating whether the letter was sent by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). He clearly gave an open-ended commitment that any child who had an assisted place at a school that went up to age 13 would keep that place up to 13.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has just pointed out, there was no suggestion in the letter that parents of such children had to have read the letter and said that they had done so to be able to believe that the place would be honoured until 13. The Government are introducing an extra criterion, which has not yet been clarified, to assure themselves not that parents were aware that the place would not be honoured but that they were aware of the Kilfoyle letter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) asked how the Department will decide whether the cases brought before it will be subject to the Secretary of State's discretion. Will there be a test for parents? Will they be asked what the Kilfoyle letter is, and if they do not know, will their child not get the place?
We are talking about a small number of children. If the Government want to keep faith with parents, they should be willing to accept the amendment. It is precisely because they appeared to try to forget about the Kilfoyle letter during the early stages of the Bill—to forget about a promise made by a Labour Member when he had shadow responsibility for the matter—and pretend that it did not exist, that parents are saying that they want the commitment enshrined in the Bill. They will not simply allow the exercise of discretion by the Secretary of State. It is important that people are clear about the Government's position and that the uncertainty that the Government are suggesting, through the exercise of discretion, does not continue for the parents of children who do not know the age at which the assisted places scheme will cease to apply.
I have often sat in this Chamber brief though my time in the House has been, and heard the Prime Minister say that this Government keep their word and keep their promises. The debate on the amendment is about whether the Prime Minister is right—about whether this Government keep their word or their promises. If the Prime Minister is right, the Government should accept the amendment, because only by accepting, it will they prove that they keep their word on this issue. If they do not accept the amendment, they will be saying that the Government do not keep their word or their promises, contrary to all that the Prime Minister has said, but that they choose when and when not to keep their promises.

7 pm

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I have only a brief point to add to the debate, which arises from the comments of some of my hon. Friends. My contribution is a last and, alas, perhaps a vain attempt to persuade the Government to change their mind on the issue.
As has been frequently pointed out during the debate, the issue at stake is whether parents and pupils can rely on the word of a spokesman for the Government. It should


be pointed out that it is in the interests of the Government that they should, in this case, make it clear that such reliance can be placed on the words of a Government spokesman. It is particularly in the interests of the Government in relation to an education issue because they seek to enact various education measures, the success of which will much depend on the ability of parents and students to rely on the words of Ministers about their future intentions.
As we all know, the Government have a vast majority, so they can easily reverse or amend their own legislation during this Parliament. The Government intend to introduce major measures in relation to, for example, student maintenance. If those who are subject to those measures and who are forced to take out loans feel that they cannot rely on the constancy of the Government's intention, that will do much to undermine the Government's policies. It is therefore surely in the interests not just of the country as a whole, but of the Government in terms of their legislative programme, that they should show, by accepting the amendment, that one can rely on a statement made by a Labour party spokesman in terms of its full meaning and without the slightest dilution.

Mrs. Angela Browning: During the election campaign, the Prime Minister spent a great deal of time talking about trust and honouring pledges in an age of new politics. The Bill has broken a bond of trust. The amendment would force the Government's hand and hold them to their pledge. They should have the decency and the humility to accept it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) have not rehearsed in detail the reason for our opposition to the Government's policy on assisted places. We have concentrated tonight on the question of the honour of a Government who are now being challenged to keep their word.
I heard the Secretary of State say from a sedentary position that our pleas were all cant. I can tell him that parents who are worried about their children's future do not regard the honouring of a man's word as cant. That is the very least they expect from a Government.
I remind the Secretary of State of the pledge that he is being asked to honour on behalf of his Prime Minister and his Government. During the election campaign, the former shadow schools Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), gave a pledge, not to the country, but to the parents of children who had been awarded places under the assisted places scheme. The hon. Gentleman wrote:
If a child has a place at a school which runs to age 13, then that place will be honoured through to 13.
There was no equivocation, and no talk of potential abuse. There was a clear commitment to honour every place.
The Government have not taken that line since they published the Bill two months ago. There has been no talk of honouring places through to 13. Indeed, as we have heard this evening, Ministers have changed the line almost

every time the matter has been discussed. We are now told that Ministers will use their discretion in deciding who has a valid place and who does not. Possession and knowledge of the document written by a spokesman for his Government before the election will decide whether parents are in a strong position to argue their case and whether they feel that they are part of that pledge.
Ministers' warm words offer no guarantee to parents whose children have been awarded assisted places until the age of 13 as their proposed discretionary power could, by definition, be used to guarantee a child an assisted place or to deny a child an assisted place. In effect, Ministers are saying to parents, "Trust us. We will use our discretion."
I appeal to the Secretary of State tonight not to leave those people hanging in the balance. He should honour the words of his colleague which were used in a letter that is now on the public record. He should demonstrate to the country that the Government are honourable and that the Prime Minister is honourable. If he does not, his actions will be judged by the people.

Mr. Blunkett: I intend to be brief in my reply. I used the word "cant" from a sedentary position because we get lectures from Conservative Members about broken promises, about letters being sent by Labour Members when in opposition and about Governments fulfilling their promises to the electorate. We are getting those lectures from people who broke every promise going in the previous 18 years. Immediately they came into office in 1979, they broke many of the promises they had made in opposition. One example was that they tripled the number of the unemployed although they came into office on a promise to reduce unemployment. Some of us have long memories and some of us remember the slogan, "Labour isn't working". Conservative Members should not quote a letter sent by a shadow Minister, and they should not talk about a promise that was not given in a manifesto and that did not form part of the election campaign and then describe our actions as cant.

Mr. Dorrell: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to reflect a moment on the doctrine that he is enunciating? Is he really saying that the only words that the Labour party regards itself as bound by are the words contained in its election manifesto? Is he really saying that none of the words used by its spokesmen are commitments that can be regarded as binding? Alternatively, would he prefer to go back to the proposition that he should be regarded as bound by the letter written by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle)?

Mr. Blunkett: No, I am not enunciating a doctrine, and I am not suggesting what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I am suggesting that, outside the House, the word that might be used about people who accuse us of breaking our word is "hypocritical". We are talking tonight about precisely the opposite of what is being suggested. We are saying that, despite the fact that there was no manifesto commitment and that the matter was not part of the general election campaign, we are prepared to honour what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service implied in his letter.
We shall use discretion to carry through the commitment to children who were promised that they would be able to hold their places up to the age


of 13. Children in secondary schools who start at the age of 10 will be able to carry through until they are 18 years old—and we did not overturn the new primary admissions policy that the previous Government had introduced.
What I said about the upper House—the words have been twisted—needs to be clarified. I have not disputed for a moment the right of the upper House to send legislation back to this House or to move amendments. I have not suggested for a moment that that right does not exist. I merely pointed out that, had there not been hereditary peers, the amendment would not be before us, because it would have been defeated in the upper House. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable point to make from a democratically elected legislature that speaks on behalf of the British people.
One day, the class wars in this country will be over; we shall have a modern democracy in the 21st century—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: When you are gone.

Mr. Blunkett: That sedentary suggestion is very interesting. It is the kind of very silly class remark that shows contempt for an elected legislature in a democracy.

Mr. Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I am not giving way, because I am going to finish by saying—

Mr. Dorrell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I have given way once to the right hon. Gentleman in what I promised would be a very short speech.
We are fulfilling the commitment that was made. We have said that in the upper House and again tonight. I shall not read further words from my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone, although I have them here. I shall commit the House to carrying through what she pledged and what we have said calmly and sensibly tonight. Those who had a promise will have that promise fulfilled. Those who believed that the letter sent on 1 April gave them a commitment will be fulfilled. I promise the House that we shall fulfil those commitments, and that is why we ask the House to reject the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 120.

Division No. 66]
[7.11 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron, Kevin


Ainger, Nick
Battle, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bayley, Hugh


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bennett, Andrew F


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Benton, Joe


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Berry, Roger


Ashton, Joe
Betts, Clive


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blackman, Liz


Atkins, Charlotte
Blizzard, Bob


Austin, John
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Banks, Tony
Boateng, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Borrow, David





Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Grocott, Bruce


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Grogan, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gunnell, John


Buck, Ms Karen
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Burgon, Colin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Byers, Stephen
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Caborn, Richard
Hanson, David


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Healey, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cann, Jamie
Hepburn, Stephen


Casale, Roger
Heppell, John


Caton, Martin
Hesford, Stephen


Cawsey, Ian
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hill, Keith


Chaytor, David
Hinchliffe, David


Church, Ms Judith
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clapham, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Ann
Howells, Dr Kim


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Colman, Tony (Putney)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cooper, Yvette
Illsley, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jamieson, David


Cousins, Jim
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Cox, Tom
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cranston, Ross
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)



Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dawson, Hilton
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kemp, Fraser


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dobbin, Jim
Kidney, David


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dowd, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Drew, David
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Drown, Ms Julia
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Laxton, Bob


Ellman, Ms Louise
Leslie, Christopher


Ennis, Jeff
Levitt, Tom


Etherington, Bill
Linton, Martin


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lock, David


Flint, Caroline
Love, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Don (Bath)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonnell, John


Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
McIsaac, Shona


Gapes, Mike
Mackinlay, Andrew


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McNulty, Tony


Gerrard, Neil
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWalter, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McWilliam, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mallaber, Judy


Grant, Bernie
Mandelson, Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marek, Dr John






Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Shipley, Ms Debra


Martlew, Eric
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Singh, Marsha


Meale, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Spellar, John


Morley, Elliot
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stevenson, George


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mountford, Kali
Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mudie, George
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Norris, Dan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Tipping, Paddy


Olner, Bill
Todd, Mark


Pearson, Ian
Touhig, Don


Pendry, Tom
Trickett, Jon


Perham, Ms Linda
Truswell, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pollard, Kerry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pond, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Pound, Stephen
Vis, Dr Rudi


Powell, Sir Raymond
Walley, Ms Joan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watts, David


Prescott, Rt Hon John
White, Brian


Primarolo, Dawn
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prosser, Gwyn
Wicks, Malcolm


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)



Rammell, Bill
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rapson, Syd
Willis, Phil


Raynsford, Nick
Wills, Michael


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Winnick, David


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rogers, Allan
Wise, Audrey


Rooker, Jeff
Wood, Mike


Rooney, Terry
Woolas, Phil


Rowlands, Ted
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ruane, Chris
Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wyatt, Derek


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Salter, Martin
Mr. Greg Pope and


Sawford, Phil
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Browning, Mrs Angela


Arbuthnot, James
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Bercow, John
Butterfill, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cash, William


Blunt, Crispin
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Body, Sir Richard



Boswell, Tim
Chope, Christopher





Collins, Tim
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Colvin, Michael
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cormack, Sir Patrick
MacKay, Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maples, John


Day, Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan, Alan
Merchant, Piers


Duncan Smith, Iain
Nicholls, Patrick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Norman, Archie


Evans, Nigel
Paterson, Owen


Faber, David
Prior, David


Fabricant, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Flight, Howard
Robathan, Andrew


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fraser, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gibb, Nick
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ruffley, David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Gray, James
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Green, Damian
Spicer, Sir Michael


Greenway, John
Spring, Richard


Grieve, Dominic
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Hague, Rt Hon William
Swayne, Desmond


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Syms, Robert


Hammond, Philip
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Sir Teddy


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Temple-Morris, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Townend, John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Trend, Michael


Horam, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Walter, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Wardle, Charles


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Whittingdale, John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Willetts, David


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lansley, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Leigh, Edward
Woodward, Shaun


Letwin, Oliver
Yeo, Tim


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lidington, David



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Loughton, Tim
Mr. James Cran and


Luff, Peter
Sir David Madel.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment to the Bill: Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Stephen Byers, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. David Jamieson and Sir David Madel; Three to be quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to a Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords

Law Officers Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a very short Bill with the modest purpose of improving the efficiency of my office. It is, incidentally, the first legislation promoted by the Law Officers for more than 50 years.
Before I turn to the Bill, it may assist the House if I explain briefly the constitutional duties of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. The modern title of Attorney-General was first used in 1461. An occupant in 1700 was called the bull-faced Jonas. Elwyn Jones, whom we fondly recall, preferred not to be remembered as the bulldog of the Crown, but as the corgi of the community.
Shortly after taking office, both the Solicitor-General and I swore ancient oaths, as our predecessors did, that we would sue the Queen's process "and after our cunning". I understood that to mean that we would use all our cunning in a better sense. Both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are members of the Government. Together with the Scottish Law Officers, they are the Government's chief legal advisers.
The Law Officers also perform a wide range of duties in the public interest. In those roles, they are independent of the Government and are not bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility. Some of those functions arise from custom or the common law. For example, the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown represents the interests of charity in the courts. He can lend his name to proceedings brought by a person who wishes to vindicate a public right. He traditionally advises the sovereign on peerage claims. Other functions are conferred by statute, such as the Explosive Substances Act 1883, which requires the Attorney-General's consent before a prosecution may be brought under it.
The Solicitor-General has been regarded as the Attorney-General's deputy since the first Solicitor-General, Richard Fowler, was appointed in 1461. However, the Solicitor-General's ability to act as the Attorney-General's deputy is curiously limited. The reason is simply that most of the Attorney-General's functions are conferred on him personally. Unless statute or the common law provides otherwise, they are exercisable only by the Attorney-General. In 1944, that became an acute problem, when the Attorney-General, Sir Donald Somervell, was in America for several months assisting—I believe—in the drafting of the charter of the United Nations. The Solicitor-General was Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, who was unable to discharge Sir Donald's functions without express statutory authority.
Parliament duly passed the Law Officers Act, which provided—and provides to this day—that the Solicitor-General has the power to act in the place of the Attorney-General where that office is vacant, or where the Attorney-General is absent or ill, or where the Attorney-General has authorised the Solicitor-General to act in a particular case.
That was a useful reform, but the main drawback of the 1944 Act is that, so long as the Attorney-General is present, the Solicitor-General may not act on his behalf unless he has been specifically authorised to do so.
That is needlessly bureaucratic. There are decisions in dozens of areas that have to be taken by the Law Officers. My officials cannot put papers directly to my noble and learned Friend the Solicitor-General asking him for a decision. Instead, they must put them first to me so that I can consider them and either grant the necessary authority or take the decision myself.
The Bill will make it possible for the Attorney-General's responsibilities to be carried out more effectively, by allowing each of his functions to be discharged by the Solicitor-General. The functions, I should add, remain in law those of the Attorney-General, and the Solicitor-General will usually act in the Attorney-General's name.
The Bill does away with the limitations in the 1944 Act. It thereby places the Solicitor-General, broadly speaking, in the position of a junior Minister in any other Department. A junior Minister may discharge his or her Secretary of State's functions without being specifically asked to do so in every case.
Another weakness of the 1944 Act is that it says nothing about when or how the Solicitor-General may exercise the Attorney-General's common law functions. As a result, his authority comes from the common law itself, where the leading case of Wilkes dates from 1770. The Bill introduces some long overdue certainty.
What I have said so far chiefly applies to England and Wales. Clause 2 makes similar provision for Northern Ireland. The House may at first find that clause bewildering, so I should explain that, by virtue of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the Attorney-General for England and Wales is ex officio Attorney-General for Northern Ireland too. The Solicitor-General enjoys no such status, but under the same Act he may discharge the Attorney-General's functions in much the same circumstances as are set out in the Law Officers Act 1944.
Finally, I should emphasise that it is the Attorney-General, as Minister in charge of the Department, who will remain ultimately responsible for the work of both Law Officers. I shall continue to decide how work should be divided between my noble and learned Friend and myself.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to welcome the Bill. Indeed, in other circumstances my Conservative successor as Attorney-General would have introduced a similar Bill. I had been looking for some years for a suitable slot in which to introduce the provision myself. Of course the Opposition will support the Bill, although it will not be necessary to support it in the Lobby.
The Bill is to be welcomed, because it enables the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General to work together more efficiently and, where necessary, interchangeably. It will enable the work of the Law Officers' Department to be carried on more swiftly and effectively. In recent years, in particular, the lack of such a Bill has made it necessary to formalise the delegation of work in a somewhat bureaucratic way. When the Bill is passed, we shall be able to do away with that unnecessary formalization.
I was interested to hear what the Attorney-General said about the provenance of the Law Officers' authority. I am not sure whether the analogy with junior Ministers should


be taken too far, because the Solicitor-General is himself a holder of office pursuant to the royal seal, and has powers of his own as well as powers delegated to him by the Attorney-General.
The Bill makes it unnecessary to formalise the delegation of work, and will also make it impossible to take some rather unmeritorious points in court in some of the tricky litigation in which the Law Officers are inevitably involved.
I shall add a word about Northern Ireland. As the Attorney-General has rightly said, there is no formal position of Solicitor-General for Northern Ireland—no office under that title. But the Solicitor-General is always referred to as the Solicitor-General in Northern Ireland when he is acting at the behest of the Attorney-General over there.
It has been an honourable tradition of Attorneys and Solicitors-General over the years, regardless of party, to work closely in Northern Ireland with all those responsible for relevant duties there, as well as with the judiciary.
I regarded it as a great honour to have been called to the Bar in Northern Ireland, and I am confident that the present Attorney-General will have been called too, and is a member of the Bar there. I expect that the Solicitor-General has also been so called, and that both of them feel as Sir Derek Spencer and I did when we were respectively Solicitor-General and Attorney-General, and as Sir Patrick Mayhew and I did in the years when I was Solicitor-General and he was Attorney-General.
We were both called to the Bar of Northern Ireland and were Queen's counsel within the Bar of Northern Ireland, as well as Benchers in Northern Ireland. Each of us regarded that as a great honour, and in the course of the work involved we were taken to all parts of the Province.

This sensible little Bill will enable that work to be facilitated, as well as the work in England and Wales, and I am glad to give it our support.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

Considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the two motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Workskill Courses) Pilot (No. 2) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

Electricity Pylons (Vale of York)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome this opportunity to raise a matter of great concern to my constituents and those of neighbouring hon. Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
The subject of overhead pylons through the Vale of York was first debated in 1991, and subsequently in 1992 and 1995. The discussions concerned the building of a new gas-fired power station at the ICI Wilton complex on Teesside, which was granted planning permission in 1991 and has subsequently been constructed. Rumours are circulating about a proposal for a new power station to be built in the Newcastle area which would create the totally unacceptable possibility of further transmission implications. The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry may be able to respond to my concerns.
It was only subsequent to the granting of planning permission for the ICI Wilton complex that the National Grid Company proposed to construct new transmission lines running from Lackenby in Cleveland to Pickton in North Yorkshire, and then south to Shipton near York. One point of concern on which I would like the Minister to comment is that these two applications were treated for planning purposes as two separate events. The power stations gained planning permission without any apparent consideration of the environmental impact of the subsequent construction of 60 miles of pylons through some of the most stunningly beautiful countryside in rural England.
My first concern is the impact on the environment. The House will be familiar with the work of REVOLT, which stands for Rural England Versus Overhead Line Transmission. It has 300 active members, stretching to 10,000 signatories of various petitions. That reflects the increasingly vociferous support for the REVOLT campaign throughout north Yorkshire. REVOLT and local residents have consistently argued that the lines were unnecessary, and that is my principal point this evening.
The Teesside complex has been built and, subsequently, there has been no transmission from the plant. The new power station will use apparently spare transmission lines. My constituents, and those of other hon. Members in North Yorkshire, are concerned about that. If there were a proven need, there would not have been the campaign or the strength of feeling against the proposed pylons.
There is also the perceived health hazard, an aspect which has not been investigated fully either by this House or by the public inquiries. The fundamental concern is that the proposal would harm the visual outlook of rural North Yorkshire and would have a negative impact on the prices of housing and other amenities in the immediate residential areas surrounding the pylons.
North Yorkshire county council has lent its full support to the campaign and has consistently spoken against the pylons. The council is unconvinced that the line is required, and believes that the environmental impact of

the construction is too high a price to pay and that the procedures leading to the present situation have been wrong.
I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions. Have the Government actively discharged their duty under the European Union directive on environmental impact assessment—adopted in 1985—specifically article 3 and annexe 3 thereof? Have they undertaken a specific environmental impact assessment to identify, describe and assess the direct, indirect and secondary effects of the proposed line of pylons on the environment? It would be a source of satisfaction to the House if the Minister could report that such an impact assessment has been carried out. We are obliged under the directive and our treaty obligations to pursue such an assessment.
My information is that such an assessment has not taken place, and I would like to report to my constituents that it will. Have the Government considered the negative impact on local amenities and specifically house prices, which would plummet should the pylons be constructed? Are the Government in a position to rule on the inspector's report and recommendations following the last public inquiry? The report has been with the Department of Trade and Industry for approximately two years.
During the recent general election campaign, there was without a shadow of a doubt all-party support for the campaign against the construction of the pylons. The Labour candidate for my constituency promised to deliver a decision in the early days of a Labour Government that that Government would reject the proposals. I asked whether any candidate from any party or any member of any Government could deliver such a pledge, but the Minister has an excellent opportunity to deliver.
If the Minister is unable—or does not have the competence—to reach such a decision, will he agree that the figures placed before the inspector at the last inquiry for the cost of transmission were erroneous? Will the Minister instruct another inquiry to assess the true cost? In my view, the true cost would reflect as a 15 per cent. loss in transmission—representing, at a conservative estimate, a £660 million loss to consumers.
I accept that power stations are competitive, but they obtain a subsidy for long-distance transmission on the grid. They have an artificial incentive to locate near the fuel source and far from the end consumer. Does the Minister agree that the preferred option for industry, the consumer and the environment is to locate the power supply as close to the point of demand as possible? Will the Government therefore consider the option of underground transmission? Has this been considered or costed? Sweden and Australia have ruled that no alternative to underground transmission of electricity and gas supplies will be considered in future.
As Sizewell B is now on line, what need is there for increased electricity in the south? Do not Sizewell A and B together satisfy the demand in the south, with resultant cheaper transmission costs?
If the line were consented to, the door would be open, contractually, to increase Scottish imports to the south of England, which raises a wider national issue. There is no proven need for the pylons. It is my view and that of many of my constituents that erroneous transmission costs were presented to the inquiry. I urge that the true costs be investigated.
Information exists that could show that the previous inquiry was crucially misinformed, and that gives good reasons for an early rejection of the proposed line of pylons. Failing that, I plead for the option of reopening the inquiry so that need, finances and the environment can finally be considered.
I invite the Minister to rule against the construction of these ugly and obscene pylons in the interests of preserving our countryside as we know it and keeping rural England as stunningly beautiful as the Vale of York that we enjoy today. The people of the Vale of York are in the Government's hands and we await with eager anticipation a definitive decision against the construction of the pylons or, at the very least, a decision to open inquiries on the perceived need, the cost, the environmental impact and the knock-on effects on amenities and housing.
Will the Government make the necessary changes to ensure that in future, in considering whether to approve power generation schemes, the environmental impact of transmission is also considered?

Mr. John Austin: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for allowing me to speak in her Adjournment debate. Hon. Members may be wondering why a London Member should be speaking on an issue concerning the Vale of York. I can explain that simply: BICC Cables—one of the few pieces of manufacturing industry left in London, and a world-class business which exports about 60 per cent. of its turnover but is also dependent on its United Kingdom business, as a major supplier to the National Grid Company—is located in my constituency.
I recognise the hon. Lady's strength of feeling and determination to campaign on environmental issues in her constituency, as I have done in mine when it has been threatened by motorways or roads through areas of outstanding natural beauty, but I must state the position as it may affect employees and businesses in my constituency.
The National Grid Company has a statutory obligation, determined not by Labour but by the previous Government, to connect all licensed generators to its transmission system and to transmit power generated by the licence holder to areas of need, no matter how many tens or even hundreds of kilometres away. There is currently excess generating capacity in Scotland and the north-east of England. It has been estimated that restricting the use of power stations in those areas may be costing as much as £50 million a year. I believe that the Department of Trade and Industry has an obligation to avoid that waste.
BICC is also involved with underground cables, and welcomed the decision of the first public inquiry, in 1992, to put part of the link underground. On environmental grounds, I should like as much as possible of any transmission link to be underground; that would be good news for the environment as well as for employees in Erith.
Labour cannot be held responsible for delays. Problems have been created for BICC, which first became aware of the project in 1991. The first public inquiry was in 1992,

and, from 1993 to 1995, BICC did a great deal of preparatory work and detailed engineering study. The public inquiry recommendation published in 1994 gave approval for the link, with the stipulation that the section at Nunthorpe should be underground. The then President of the Board of Trade said that he was minded to accept the inquiry's findings. On that basis, BICC has continued to invest in the project and to keep spare capacity available at its factory in Erith; it has therefore suffered some detriment.
The hon. Member for Vale of York said that there was unanimity among various candidates, but the former Conservative Member of Parliament for the former constituency of Erith and Crayford, Mr. David Evennett, pressed the then Minister, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, extremely hard in September 1996 for an early decision in the matter. Lord Fraser replied in a letter of 30 September 1996 that the Conservative Government were giving the matter careful consideration and noted his request for a decision as soon as possible.
I know that the current Minister has had the matter on his desk for only a few weeks, but a decision is required fairly urgently if BICC Cables in Erith is not to suffer further detriment.

Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on the good fortune of having been elected to the House as the Member for a constituency which, along with Ryedale, Richmond, Yorks, and Skipton and Ripon, has represented since 1 May a substantial buffer of blue surrounded by a sea of red, and which also happens to be one of the most gloriously beautiful parts of the British Isles.
There is no doubt that the issue raised by my hon. Friend has given rise to considerable anger for about five years, and I congratulate her on securing this debate. In the previous Parliament, I raised the matter on the Floor of the House on no fewer than three occasions: twice in the three-hour end-of-Session Adjournments and once on an Adjournment of the House.
I offer a hand of friendship and sympathy to the Minister. He deserves it, because he has inherited an extremely difficult situation. I am sure that he will tell us that the matter has sat on Ministers' and officials' desks at the Department of Trade and Industry for the best part of two years. It is a tribute to the resilience of those of us who have been fighting this for some time that we have managed to keep the ball in play and avoid a decision being taken in favour of the pylons. As the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) pointed out, other people want a different decision because of the trade and jobs that will be associated with it. Such decisions always have that dimension.
Three points ought to be stressed, and they present the Minister with the solution to the dilemma that I acknowledge he faces. First, the basic reasons why the National Grid Company first applied for the power lines are no longer relevant. When the application was made, the people of North Yorkshire were told that the line was needed to meet the NGC's statutory obligation to connect a power station into the national grid, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead said. It did that, and, in the five years since the new power station at Bilton has been


operating, it has been taken into the grid, there has been no reduction in the power demand from the plant, and the grid has worked. There have been no difficulties. I will not explain the technical terms. Our advisers talk of trip-outs and so forth, which have not occurred. So the need for the line has never been demonstrated on the original terms, which were to connect the Bilton power plant.
Secondly, soon after the public inquiries into the matter were launched, the rabbit came out of the hat when it became clear that the NGC was about two separate things. First, it was seeking to strengthen the grid so that it could accommodate more power from more power stations built on the north-east coast.
Two such power stations were in the planning stage, but I think that I am right in saying that no application has ever arrived on the desk of a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry or, formerly, the Department of Energy. One power station was to be called Flotilla and the other Neptune. Neither has progressed, for the simple reason that, while all this was going on, the Director General of Electricity Supply has rumbled the fact that we are spending so much money transmitting electricity around the country that there is a transmission loss and that it would be more effective and beneficial to consumers, whether domestic or industrial, if more power were generated closer to the market.

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Build more power stations?

Mr. Greenway: Yes, why not? If two more gas-fired power stations are to be built on the north-east coast to transmit electricity to the south of England, where the market is, why not transmit the gas and build the power stations in the south? That is a logical argument, and it would be more efficient to do so.
Secondly, there is excess capacity in Scotland, as has been mentioned, I think by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead. Really this is about creating the opportunity for more electricity imports into England and Wales from Scotland. When that became apparent, one of the two privatised electricity generators, PowerGen, joined the campaign against the pylons, saying that there was not a level playing field. It said, by all means let there be competition in electricity supply, but that means that electricity can, equally, go into Scotland. On that basis, PowerGen said that the power lines were not necessary.
My third point shows the Minister how he can get out of this dilemma and give the people of North Yorkshire who will be affected by the power lines the opportunity of a fairer say than they have had already. From what the NGC told the original public inquiries, it is clear that they and the original inspector were misled on the key issue of transmission costs. The Minister has the correspondence in his file and on his desk. He knows that the NGC said that it would cost it more if it did not strengthen the grid than if it did, but, following the investigations into transmission costs undertaken by the director general, the reality is that, if it builds the power line, transmission costs will rise.
If the inspector's recommendation to go ahead, which led the former President of the Board of Trade my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to suggest that he was minded to accept the inquiry, was based on what

can only be described, and is described by people in North Yorkshire, as completely duff information, why should the inquiry not be reopened so that the proper facts can be established? What has the NGC got to fear from a fresh inquiry and a fresh opportunity to state its case? It has convinced no one in North Yorkshire that the power lines are needed. On occasion, it has even failed to convince itself.
My solution for the Minister is, please, give us the inquiry for which, as he knows, I have asked for the best part of 18 months in this and the previous Parliament, as has my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, whose constituency is greatly affected by the problem.
Finally, there is no doubt that the structure of the privatisation of the electricity industry has created some of the difficulties we are faced with, as it was bound to do. That made it difficult for former Ministers to grant the decision that we would have liked.
The present Minister is not inhibited by that consideration. He has the opportunity to tackle many of the criticisms of electricity privatisation that we heard when we were on the Government Benches and Labour was in opposition. He should not simply accept that he must make a certain decision because that was the structure of the way things were done. He has an opportunity for a fresh approach and a fresh look at the question. The fact that the NGC knows that it has been found out and that its case to the inquiry was based on bogus information gives us the perfect opportunity to have another inquiry.

Ms Dari Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak tonight. I must also extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for allowing me to speak in her debate, for which I am grateful.
As this is my maiden speech, I will certainly pepper it with some eulogies about my constituency, but it is not merely the visual outlook of the people of Stockton, South that is harmed by pylons and overhead lines. Their gardens, streets and schools and the lives that people in so many parts of my constituency lead are, frankly, straddled by overhead lines. The visual impact of pylons when they start in one's garden is monstrous. It is not merely that I want to tell the hon. Lady that I do not want any part of the countryside in Great Britain and its beauty harmed or damaged. I am also speaking clearly for so many of my constituents who want those things removed from their gardens and homes.
This is my maiden speech and it is incumbent on me to say some warm words about a constituency that I love. The River Tees runs through it, some very green and pleasant lands are attached to it and it has many leafy suburbs. It has people with considerable grit and guts. People who fight and have had to fight because their industry has been destroyed—sometimes, because people thought that it was not making sufficient profit and, oftentimes, because people were not concerned to put in the investment that the industry deserved and the people certainly deserve.
My constituency has gone through awful changes. Many of my constituents are unemployed. In some parts, 50 per cent. of the residential area has no one in work. That is a sad statement for me to have to make. Many


children face not only existing but accumulated deprivation. I balance that by noting that, while my constituents have put up with, and continue to put up with, industrial turmoil and decline, they are still in there fighting. They would most like their environment to be cherished more and damaged less.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Tim Devlin, who worked very hard for his party. He was a good constituency Member, as I intend to be. One of my predecessors, Harold Macmillan, was even more notable, although not necessarily more worthy, because he served as Prime Minister. I grew up during his era and, as a small child, sat in the House listening to him. I was spellbound by him and the others then in the House. My father was also a Member, representing Burnley. This is therefore a very special moment for me, because it brings back so many warm and cherished memories.
I am saddened to have to make my maiden speech when I am pleading for the people of constituency and their life styles, and asking the utilities to behave in a decent manner by burying the overhead lines and getting rid of the pylons. I know that one should not use the word "conflict" in a maiden speech, but there is one in this case. I question what the utilities have said about their ability to make profit. Inevitably, it is profit that has driven them to build pylons and overhead lines.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of York. As she stated, it is not only a question of the visual outlook. For many of my people in places such as Yarm and Eaglescliffe, it is a question of health. They believe that a health risk attaches to pylons and overhead lines. Some medical reports suggest that that could be the case. My constituents worry about bringing up their children in such an environment when they do not know whether there is a risk. We must press for better research.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Vale of York that, should the Lackenby to Picton line go ahead, pylons and overhead lines will be removed from a part of my constituency. Some of my constituents will receive a tangible benefit. They long for the lines to come down, because supply will increase and make those lines redundant. The fact that there will be a clear and immediate benefit for some, while for others the hideous pylons and overhead lines will remain, creates an awful dilemma for me. I should welcome more research and development, and clearer ideas about how to transmit power more effectively. I should like to believe that we can produce energy at the point of need, rather than transmitting it as we do.
I hope that this statement is accepted as being made with warmth and not in a spirit of conflict, but I wish that we had not had to wait 104 weeks for the report. It has clearly been with the Department of Trade and Industry for some time, and we should been given it earlier. We could have made clearer and more sensible statements to the electorate in the general election, rather than merely saying that we would fight to do what we could to support their needs. We could have spoken positively and clearly if the report had been made available earlier.
This is an important debate, which I welcome. It is crucial that we get this argument right. It is very important for the countryside, but it is also important for the residents of Stockton, South.

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate. I pay her a special compliment, because this is an unusual Adjournment debate. Such debates are usually held at the end of the day and conducted exclusively between a Member raising a constituency concern and a Minister, with other Members occasionally being allowed to ask a question. The hon. Lady has displayed extraordinary generosity in letting other hon. Members take part in the debate. The fact that they wanted to take part shows that there is real concern about the issue. I almost feel that the matter was worthy of a full Wednesday morning debate.
It is also unusual for a Member to make a maiden speech in an Adjournment debate. Although she may not wish me to speak in such terms, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), because she spoke with passion and warmth of her constituency. As it was an unusual debate in which to make such a speech, I know that she did not spend not days and weeks preparing, but responded to the terms of the debate. The natural, articulate authenticity with which she spoke augurs well. She is a remarkable speaker and captured our attention. I pay tribute to her for having had the courage to make her first speech in such a debate. Her constituents have an articulate champion in the House. I and, I am sure, other hon. Members, look forward to hearing her often.
I compliment the other hon. Members who spoke. I think that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) raised the matter in 1985.

Mr. Greenway: Nineteen ninety-five.

Mr. Battle: Yes. It was in 1991 and 1992 that the Leader of the Opposition raised it. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) for bringing his angle to the debate.
The matter is one of the items that I inherited. To be provocative, I was left a rather large in-tray by the outgoing Government. This item stuck out between the bars at the bottom of the tray. I am not shy about intending to get through the in-tray to put it behind us so that we can get on to the agendas that we want to address in the medium and long term.
The North Yorkshire lines are a long-running saga. The National Grid Company put in applications for a new 400 kV line development from Lackenby, Cleveland via Picton to Shipton in 1991. All the local planning authorities affected objected, as did more than 7,000 individuals. A public inquiry was held into the development in 1992 and a further public inquiry was held into proposed diversions in 1995.
The 1992 inquiry was lasted six months, from May to November, and reported in October 1993. Following receipt of the report of the 1992 public inquiry, a letter was issued in May 1994 by the Department indicating the overall route to which the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), was minded to grant consent. He was minded to grant consent for much of the route as overhead lines. Copies of the inspector's report from the 1992 inquiry were placed in the Library at the time.
A subsequent public inquiry was held between March and April 1995. It considered proposed line diversions, and reviewed general issues relating to the development. The report was received in December 1995. Since then, the Department has been considering all the evidence, including the material received since the inquiry closed.
It may be a little churlish of me to say it, but I jibbed a little at the hon. Member for Vale of York's remark about my incompetence—I have been in the job for just 12 weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead said, the proposed development remained in the previous Government's in-tray for 104 weeks. It is now in my urgent action file, because I want the matter to be sorted out.
As hon. Members will be aware, however, my involvement in the statutory progress precludes me from commenting on the merits and demerits of the application. I am tempted to comment, because I enjoy debate and I enjoyed listening to the range of views expressed tonight, but I hope that hon. Members will understand my role in the matter. I can become involved only when the President of the Board of Trade has considered all the details relating to the application and taken a decision. I must confine my remarks to general ones. I hope that hon. Members will accept my reply in that spirit. I have noted what has been said, which will, of course, be recorded in Hansard, and officials at the Department of Trade and Industry will also take note of those contributions.
In opposition, we promised that, in government, we would look at all the evidence in the light of the two public inquiries and consider local and national needs. That is exactly what we are doing, so we are already acting on the suggestion of hon. Member for Vale of York.
A fair amount of material has built up on the case and must be absorbed. The development has rightly been subjected to the detailed scrutiny of the planning process. Given the controversy that has arisen, it has also been rightly subjected to the attention of the House in the past and again tonight. I got a hint from the hon. Member for Ryedale that it may well be referred to again if the decision on the development drags on. I accept that, but, for our part, we need to consider the conclusions and recommendations in the report on the detailed inquiry in 1995. It is not yet in the public domain, but it reviewed general issues and the specific applications for line diversions.
The line diversions are only part of the overall scheme, and it is therefore appropriate for us to look again at the report on the first inquiry in 1992, as well as the then Secretary of State's provisional conclusion on that inquiry in his letter of 12 May 1994. Various parties have submitted additional material to the Department since the last inquiry closed in 1995, which we also need to consider. We shall also obviously want to reflect on the views expressed by hon. Members tonight. That takes time, and if the Government were so unwise as to take an instant decision either at the Dispatch Box tonight or after we had so recently come into office, there would be complaints about our precipitate response to an Adjournment debate. All I can promise is that we shall reach a view on the case as soon as we properly can, in the light of all the material available.
That means that account will be taken of environmental impact assessments and the cost of putting the lines under the ground, an alternative to which hon. Members have rightly referred. As far as I can recall, the inspectors considered in the first inquiry that the overhead lines in the proximity of the Teesside power station served a number of needs relating to the power station, the future possible growth of generation in the north-east and increasing exports from Scotland. Although the Department of Trade and Industry was aware of the concerns raised by objectors, the consent to the power station was granted without the environmental impact of the overhead line being taken into consideration.
I understand that the previous Government decided that it would have been wrong to treat the overhead line as an integral part of the power station project and, therefore, to have delayed consent to that power station from 1990 until now. There was a division of decision relating to the power station and the line. Having said that, I should add that the overhead line proposals have been subject to full environmental assessments as required by the environmental assessment regulations. The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about that, and I hope that that information gives her a crumb of comfort. I will take that fact into account when reaching a decision on the development.
I am well aware of calls for all overhead lines to be buried underground. I would not claim that overhead cables are a visual amenity in any landscape, but we must balance their existence with people's desire to have electricity supplied to their homes to light them and to operate their televisions, washing machines and all the other accoutrements that are run by electricity. Although I cannot comment on the development in question, I feel that we need to be realistic when making a decision, because those overhead lines may be needed somewhere.
We need to take into account the environmental impact of overhead lines and consider the views of local communities about them. We also need to encourage companies to bury lines underground if they are placed in sensitive locations. We must recognise, however, the limits of present technology. To put a line underground is more expensive than to erect it overground, particularly at high voltage. The indications are that developing technology is unlikely to provide any immediate help in offsetting that cost difference. Those costs could feed through to commercial, industrial and domestic consumers.
There are also other disadvantages associated with underground cables relating to constraints on agriculture and other developments because of the need to protect those cables. They could be less reliable and take longer to repair. All that I am suggesting is that we need to look at any plans on a case-by-case basis. That is the approach which we intend to pursue on the development in question.
At this late stage in the evening, I do not want to start a full debate on the energy market, but the debate relates to it. The electricity supply industry is proving to be one of the most changing and dynamic markets of all time. Its shape is completely different from that expected on privatization.

Mr. Greenway: And even in 1992.

Mr. Battle: Yes. I seem to recall that, when the Electricity Act 1989 was passed, the pool system had not


even been conceived, but it is now the main mechanism of the market. Some argue that more power stations should be built locally, while others argue that no more are needed because of generation over-capacity. Both those views have been expressed tonight. It is interesting to note Conservative Members' perception of that market.
Following the debates on privatisation, I sometimes wonder whether Conservative Members recall that, as a result of the changes, Governments no longer build or run power stations or lines. They are run by private companies which must make market investment decisions, subject, of course, to the usual environmental and planning constraints. Developments are occurring in the market as new power stations are coming on stream and older stations are closed down. The regulator is also considering plans to introduce a more cost-reflective system of charging for transmission losses.
We need to be aware of all those factors, but that does not mean that we can simply scrap all that has gone before, wipe the slate clean and pretend that we can start afresh as though the present integrated system did not exist. We must start from where we are, which is why decisions on developments are always difficult.
I am aware that there is some concern about the possible health effects of power lines. Some months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South drew my attention to that worry. It is a serious issue. An overhead line runs near to my house in Leeds, so it is something in which I take a personal interest—perhaps I should declare that.
We should take seriously the debate about electric and magnetic fields. For the benefit of those who have not been intimately immersed in that debate, I should say that the health implications relate to the alleged effects of electric and magnetic fields which occur from the voltage forcing electric current along wires to feed appliances.

The higher the voltage, the stronger the field; the voltage can also exist when no current is flowing. Those fields have been debated by hon. Members on other occasions, and I do not wish to detain the House by commenting further on them. Indeed, the hon. Member for Vale of York did not discuss them, so perhaps it is not appropriate to have a lengthy debate on them now, but they are a matter of concern.
The National Radiological Protection Board has provided a useful information sheet, "Electric and Magnetic Fields". It is important that we treat the debate as scientifically and as seriously as we can to alleviate the worst fears and ensure that we live in as safe an environment as practically possible.
I am not advocating complacency. I do not want this matter to remain in an in-tray for another 104 weeks, as it did under the previous Government. Health issues, environmental concerns and the concerns of local communities must all be taken seriously. I understand the frustration of hon. Members at not having a definitive decision, even after two public inquiries. I also understand that they are doing more than their best to represent their constituents by raising these matters in the House tonight.
I appreciate that constituents have had to live with the uncertainty of this proposal for far too long. However, I plead with hon. Members to be patient, as this case has been with me for a mere 12 weeks. It has now been pulled out from the lower bars of the in-tray. We shall reflect on all the points made by hon. Members during the debate. I want to get on with the business of making the decision and removing the uncertainty. As I said, that will be as soon as is properly and practically possible. I assure hon. Members who have participated in the debate that I have no intention of holding up that decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Nine o'clock.